Sewak Brick Klin vs Authorized Officer, Uco Bank

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2721

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Sewak Brick Klin – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer, Uco Bank – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.D.S.Batalvi, Advocate, for Mr.O.S.Batalvi, Advocate; For the Petitioner

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

Challenge has been raised in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the symbolic possession notice issued under Rule 8(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Annexure P-5).

2. The outstanding is Rs.50,88,221.88 as per the notice dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-4). In our considered opinion, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

3. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is not for the Writ Court to exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the huge outstanding as the bank is only seeking to recover the same, especially keeping in view the law laid down in United Bank of India v. SatyawatiTondon& others , (2010) 8 SCC 110. The principles laid down in the said case were also arising out of the proceedings of SARFAESI Act and resultantly discussing the law in detail it was held that as under:-

"27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronou