Allahabad High Court
Praveen Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2011
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Rajesh Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24263 of 2011
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Sharad Chandra Singh,Satish Chandra Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.B. Sahai
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took loan for business purposes from the respondent no.2-Indian Bank.
The petitioner committed default in respect of the said loan. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitization Act") were initiated.
A Notice dated 27th August, 2008 for sale of the secured asset was issued to the petitioner. Thereupon, a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51955 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner. An Interim Order dated 30th September, 2008 was granted in the said Writ Petition requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire amount demanded by the said Notice dated 27th August, 2008 in six almost equal instalments, the first instalment to be deposited on or before 7th November, 2008.
The said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is stated to be still pending before this Court.
It further appears that the proceedings under the Securitization Act against the petitioner have been revived, and a Notice dated 30th March, 2011 (Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition) has been issued for sale of the secured asset.
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the said Notice dated 30th March, 2011.
We have heard Shri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, and Shri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Indian Bank.
Shri Sharad Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amount as contemplated in the Interim Order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by this Court in the aforesaid earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, has been deposited by the petitioner but still the proceedings under the Securitization Act have been revived against the petitioner.
Shri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Indian Bank submits that the deposits as per the terms of the said Interim Order dated 30th September, 2008 were not made by the petitioner, and consequently, the proceedings under the Securitization Act against the petitioner have been revived and the Sale Notice dated 30.3.2011 has been issued.
Shri R.B. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-Indian Bank further submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is noteworthy that in regard to the proceedings under the Securitization Act, a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court wherein an Interim Order was granted in favour of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition, which is the Second Writ Petition in regard to the same cause of action, is liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
Besides, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.
In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act.
The petitioner has, thus, an alternative remedy of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
In view of the above discussion, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
This order will, however, not come in the way of the petitioner in moving appropriate application in the aforesaid earlier Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51955 of 2008, or in pursuing the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the Securitization Act, if the petitioner is so advised.
Order Date :- 26.4.2011
Ajeet
