Back
M. R. PATHAK, MITALI THAKURIA
Md. Atowar Rahman – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
ORDER :
M.R. Pathak, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Bank of Baroda, for the respondents.
2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition on 22.11.2023 praying to set aside and quash the Possession Notice dated 08.11.2023, issued by the respondent No.2, Chief Manager & Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Guwahati Main Branch, M.S. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, Kamrup (Metro) Assam (Annexure-12 to this writ petition), issued in exercise of the power under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, in short) read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 (2002 Rules).
3. It is contended by the petitioners that -- without issuing any prior Notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, without furnishing them proper statement of account with relevant rate of interest, the statement of account that was furnished to them includes amount given to some other borrowers, namely M/S. M. B. Construction and that the statement of account furnished by the respondent Bank contained the amount and other financial b
The court ruled that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be exhausted before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, ensuring that judicial discretion is exercised cautiously....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies and the limited circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdict....
Legal heirs of a deceased guarantor cannot contest proceedings under SARFAESI Act after notice served during the guarantor's lifetime, as they must seek remedy via Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The court established that the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the issuance of a sale certificate, and timely challenge to bank actions is essential.
(1) Writ petitions filed against proposed action under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is not maintainable and/or entertainable at all.(2) Recovery of debt – High Court should have been extremely caref....
Legal action under the SARFAESI Act is not barred by concurrent proceedings under the DRT, and where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, a writ petition is unsustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
