Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Priya Baheti – Appellant
Versus
IIFL, Home Finance Ltd – Respondent
ORDER
1. None present for the petitioner even in the second round.
2. None was present for the petitioner on last date i.e. on 02.09.2022 whereupon, the matter was posted for today granting him one more opportunity to present his case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as it is directed against the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, ’DRT’) whereby, the prayer for interim relief in pending securitization application, has been declined.
4. He submits that this Court has, vide its order dated 01.09.2022 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4568/2020; Surbhi Mehta Vs. IIFL Home Finance Ltd. & Ors. and other connected matters involving identical controversy, dismissed the writ petitions preferred against order of the learned DRT in view of availability of the remedy of statutory appeal under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the brevity, ’the Act of 2002’). He also relied upon the order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4831/20
The main legal point established in the judgment is that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal may prefer an appeal, and the remedy of appeal is not confined to the par....
The court emphasized the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the court and highlighted the importance of adhering to settled legal positions.
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
