Radha Krishna Drolia vs State Bank of India and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the RespondentState Bank of India u/s 13(4)(d) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the SARFAESI Act, 2002").

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 especially u/s 18 there of, this Court may not entertain this writ petition in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when efficacious alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner, u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 especially Section 18 thereof, there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the Petitioner against an action, already taken by the RespondentState Bank of India u/s 13(4)(d) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Moreover, looking to the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, , I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is No. substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.