AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge challenging a notice dated July 24, 2018 issued by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. She claimed to be the daughter of the deceased borrower. She further claimed that no notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act was served on her. Hence, no action under Section 14 of the 2002 Act is permissible.
The learned Judge heard the writ petitioner as well as the State and the respondent bank. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the writ petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available to her. Hence, the learned Judge refused to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner/appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy available to her by way of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110, we are of the firm opinion that this writ application has rightly not been entertained by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we dismiss this appeal leaving the appellant to pursue such other remedy that may be available to her in accordance with law.
The appeal and the stay application are, accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.