AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J
Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since petitioner is not coming forward to impart instructions, he is unable to inform this Court whether a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- stands deposited with the respondent- Bank in terms of order dated 17.12.2015 or not.
Learned counsel representing respondent No.1 states that till date order dated 17th December, 2015, has not been complied with, as such, petition deserves to be dismissed.
Besides above, Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, counsel representing respondent No.1, while inviting the attention of this Court to Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the SARFAESI Act), contends that present petition is not maintainable because being aggrieved, if any, with the action of respondent-Bank there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner to approach learned Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Consequently, in view of the fact that petitioner has approached this Court directly without having availed alternative statutory remedy available under the aforesaid act, coupled with the fact that he has failed to comply with the order dated 17.12.2015, the present petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings for the redressal of his grievances, if so advised.
In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, interim directions, if any, also stand vacated.