M/S Anil Rice Mill vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 502 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17239 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Anil Rice Mill
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ankit Kapoor
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.

     On oral prayer made by Sri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to make correction in the description of respondent no. 5 in the Writ Petition as well as in the Stay Application.

    Necessary correction will be made during the course of the day.

    As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took Cash Credit Facility from the respondent no. 5 - Bank of Baroda.

   The petitioner committed default in respect of the said Cash Credit Facility Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated for sale of the secured asset.

   Auction Notice dated 22.2.2011 has  been published in the Newspaper Amar Ujala dated 22.2.2011.

   The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the said Auction Notice.

   The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is impugning the proceedings being taken against it under the Securitization Act on various grounds.

   We have heard Shri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 to 5.

   In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others 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.

   In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon & others  (supra) and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

    We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner of filing an Appeal/Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.

Order Date :- 25.3.2011

aks