AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Pursuant to the notice issued u/s 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for taking possession, the Collector has taken steps to assist the Bank to take possession u/s 14 of the said Act. Challenging the same, the Petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition.
Law is well settled that as against the possession notice, an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. While so, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is misconceived.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that while the amount demanded under the possession notice by the Bank is Rs. 5,72,229.75 and an amount of Rs. 5,01,000/- was paid on 14.05.2009 and 16.06.2009 in two installments and therefore, according to him, the amount liable to be paid to the Bank was discharged in full.
On the other hand, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank Mr. Pala Ramasamy, the amount of Rs. 5,72,229.75 is due as on 30.06.1995 and the Petitioner is liable to be pay the further interest. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as if the entire liability towards Bank is discharged is baseless.
In such view of the matter, it is open to the Petitioner to work out his remedy as per the Provision u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions also stand dismissed.