Dinesh Kumar Pandey vs I.C.I.C Bank India Ltd., ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 6306 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 24
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 9228 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey
 
Respondent :- I.C.I.C Bank India Ltd., Hazratganj, Lucknow & Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shobh Nath Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Prashant Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.

Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity], whereby after issuing of the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, the petitioner having failed to discharge his liability, has been noticed under Section 13 (4) of the Act by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is prepared to discharge his liabilities. However, he may be given some time.

We find from the record that the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act have been initiated against the petitioner and this writ petition would not be maintainable inasmuch as he has got the remedy under Section 17 of the Act in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others Versus Union of India and others [(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 311]'.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has got an effective statutory alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act.

There is no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 4.10.2013

VNP/-