HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11189/2021
Autolite (India) Limited, Having Its Registered Address At D-469,
Road No. 9A, V.k.i Area Jaipur-302013 India Through Its Director
Adarsh Mahipal Gupta S/o Mahipal Gupta Aged About 41 Years
Resident Of 8, Tara Nagar, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. General Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 27, Bkc,
C-27, G Bloc Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East)
Mumbai Also Having Office At 1St Floor,232-233 Sdc
Tower Near Amarpali Circle, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur-202021
2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Regional Director
Rajasthan Having Regional Office At Rambagh Circle, Tonk
Road Jaipur-302 004, India
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 01/10/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the possession notice dated 13.09.2021, issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. In the opinion of this Court, the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner can very well be granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal while exercising its appellate powers.
3. In response to Court's query as to why petitioner should not avail statutory remedy available to it under the provisions of (Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:38:21 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-11189/2021] Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, learned counsel submits that the Reserve Bank of India has issued two circulars dated 04.06.2021 and 05.05.2021, according to which, the respondent No.1 is bound to give due moretoriam and restructure the loan of a unit of MSME sector, writ petition is only the efficacious remedy as appropriate direction can be issued only by the High Court.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the Act, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere, particularly, in light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and in case of Mardia Chemicals Vs. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311].
6. Following the judgments aforesaid, the writ petition, is dismissed.
7. In case, petitioner prefers and appeal and relies upon the above referred circular, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall consider them, in accordance with law.
8. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 159-Amar/-
(Downloaded on 01/10/2021 at 09:38:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)