Satya Pal Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2846 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
              Writ Petition (M/S) No.2724 of 2023

Satya Pal Saini                                           ....Petitioner

                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                       ....Respondents

Present:-
              Mr. Subhr Rastogi, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. K.K. Sah, Additional C.S.C. for the State.

                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to order

dated 28.07.2023, passed under Section 14 of the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Act") by the

District Magistrate, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has taken

a loan from the respondent no.2, SMFG India Home Finance

Company Ltd. He could not pay its installments. But, he is

still willing and intends to deposit the balance amount. The

respondent no.2 proceeded under the Act for taking

possession of the secured assets. On 28.07.2023, an order

was passed under Section 14 of the Act.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know

from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the instant

petition be entertained in view of the fact that the petitioner

can avail alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act? He

would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to

deposit the amount; the calculation has been wrongly done;

the date for taking possession has been pre-poned and the

secured assets have been taken into possession; all the

articles of the petitioner are confined in the secured assets.

5. The Act has been enacted to regulate

securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and

enforcement of security interest, etc. There is a complete

procedure given in it. Any order passed under Sections 13

and 14 of the Act may very well be challenged under Section

17 of the Act, in view of the law, as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of C. Bright Vs. District Collector

and others, (2021) 2 SCC 392 and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Vs. Girnar Corrugators Private Ltd and Others, (2023) 3 SCC

210.

6. The petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy

by way of ventilating his grievance under Section 17 of the

Act. Therefore, the Court refrains to entertain the writ

petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at

the stage of admission itself.

7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.09.2023 Ravi Bisht