AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
The challenge in this petition is made to an order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the respondent no.1, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the Act”).
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At the very outset, the Court wanted to know as to why the petition should be entertained in view of adequate efficacious relief under Section 17 of the Act? Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may decide the matter in view of Section 17 of the Act.
The Act has been enacted to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest, etc. There is a complete procedure given in it. Any order passed under Sections 13 and 14 of the Act may very well be challenged under Section 17 of the Act, in view of the law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of C. Bright Vs. District Collector and others, (2021) 2 SCC 392, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Girnar Corrugators Private Ltd and Others, (2023) 3 SCC 210, and Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Others, (2014)6 SCC 1.
The petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy by way of ventilating his grievance under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the Court refrains to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
The writ petition is dismissed in limine.