AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—This Writ Appeal is filed against an interim order dated 7th February, 2011 in W.P(C). No. 3655 of 2011 of the learned Judge staying the coercive steps taken against the writ Petitioner-Appellant on condition that the he deposited a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The case of the Appellant is that the Bank was not justified in declaring the asset as ''NPA'' and that the course contemplated u/s 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ought not to have been pursued.
The Respondent Bank has filed a statement explaining the facts and figures including the pendency of various other matters which were finally heard and concluded. Any how, this Court does not find it necessary to go into such factual details.
Scope of interference by this Court invoking the extraordinary/discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, . The Petitioner is having an effective alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
In the above circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. If the Appellant/Petitioner has any grievance with regard to his rights and liberties, it is always open to the Appellant to resort to the remedies as provided under the Statute. The Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
We also find that nothing further survives in the Writ Petition. As it stands so, we call W.P(C). No. 3655 of 2011 and dismiss the same as well.