Autolite (India) Limited vs General Manager, Kotak Mahindra ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5523 Raj/2

      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

(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/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)