Devendra Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1916 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30232 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- M.C. Tiwari,Kiran Tiwari
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Trivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.

    On oral prayer made by Shri M.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, which has given Possession Notice (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), as party-respondent no.3 in the Writ Petition as well as in the Stay Application.

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

    As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took loan for construction of house from the respondent no.2-I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited.

    The property in question was given as security for the said loan.

    The petitioner committed default in respect of the said loan. Consequently, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act").

    Possession Notice dated 7.12.2010 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) has been issued to the petitioner by the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (respondent no.3) claiming itself to be assignee from the respondent no.2.

    The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the said Possession Notice dated 7.1.2010.

    We have heard Shri M.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2

    The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the proceedings being taken against him under the Securitization Act on various grounds.

    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.

    In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon (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 him 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 by filing an Appeal/Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.

Order Date :- 24.5.2011

Ajeet