Dismissed

Amritlal Kothari v. the Reserve Bank of India

Rajasthan HC20 Dec 2021CW/13208/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging proceedings of a Non Banking Financial Institution under the SARFAESI Act, holding that the beneficiaries have an efficacious alternative remedy and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; stay application disposed; free to take remedy before DRT or Reserve Bank of India.

Amritlal Kothari Vs the Reserve Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13208/2021

¶3

Amritlal Kothari S/o Shri Ghishu Lal Kothari, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Ravish Palace Adarsh Nagar, Behind Rajkamal Hotel, Kankoroli, District Rajsamand.

¶4

Smt. Sunita Kothari W/o Shri Amrit Lal Kothari, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Ravish Palace Adarsh Nagar, Behind Rajkamal Hotel, Kankoroli, District Rajsamand.

¶5

----Petitioners Versus

¶6

The Reserve Bank Of India, Through The Chief General Manager, 10Th Floor, Central Office Saheed Bhagart Singh Marg, Pb No. 10014, Mumbai-1

¶7

Akme Fintrade (India) Ltd., Through Its Authorized Officer Branch, Akme Business Centre (Abc0 4-5, Subcity Centre, Savina Circle, Opp, Krishi Upaz Mandi, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Vikram Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Deen Dayal Purohit

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

20/12/2021

¶13

The petitioners have challenged the proceedings adopted by the respondent- Non Banking Financial Institution, AKME Fintrade (India) Ltd.

¶14

In the opinion of this Court, petitioners are having efficacious remedy under of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶15

That apart, having regard to the disputes in question, this Court is of the considered view that the writ jurisdiction of this

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CW-13208/2021]

¶18

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked.

¶19

The petitioners are having efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere, particularly, being guided by the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and in case of Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311] .

¶20

Following the judgments aforesaid, the writ petition, is dismissed.

¶21

The petitioners may be free to take appropriate remedy either before DRT or before Reserve Bank of India, in accordance with law.

¶22

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶24

27-pooja/-

Amritlal Kothari v. the Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amritlal Kothari v. the Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raji Ram Vs State Co-Op. and Ors.

Bhagwan Lal Vs Gopal Lal and Ors.

Rajudi Vs Saroj Kumari and Anr.

Vidya Para Medical College Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Teacher Training College Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Haridutt S.T.C. College Vs State of Rajasthan