AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijay Kumar Shukla, J
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the auction notice dated 26.10.2025, which has been issued in pursuant to an order passed under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act, 2002) as well as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, DRT Act, 1993).
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Union of India raised preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the remedy is available to the petitioner in SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is neither borrower nor guarantor of the loan amount, therefore, no remedy is available to him. His father had taken loan by mortgaging the title-deeds and therefore, he applied to the Bank for withholding of the loan amount and to discharge the same.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, we find that in the said section the word "any person" including 'borrower' has been mentioned and the said expression "any person" has wide import and includes "any person" other than the borrower and guarantor, as well. Our view is forfeited by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, AIR 2010 SC 3413. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the petition, as the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is not entertained, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to resort to the remedy available to him, in accordance with law.