High Court dismissed a writ petition against an impugned order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(4)(A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, holding that an alternative remedy existed under Section 18 of the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3768/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
Idbi Bank Limited, Branch Office At Videocon Tower, First Floor E- 1, Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Jain with Mr. Daksh Pareek, Ms Sakshi Srivastava and Arjun Singh For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
01/06/2019
Instant writ petition is directed against the impugned order made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur under Section 17(4) (A) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act of 2002).
A glance of Section 18 of the Act of 2002, would reflect that any person aggrieved of any order made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 may prefer an appeal.
(2 of 2)
[CW-3768/2019]
In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application in view of alternative remedy as aforesaid. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/73
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Marda Estates Pvt Ltd
Viresh Marda
Idbi Bank Limited
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
