Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Kapoor Mala Jain – Appellant
Versus
Aditya Birla Finance Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge regarding securitisation proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. high court should be cautious in writ jurisdiction. (Para 3) |
| 3. jurisdictional issues related to statutory remedies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed; alternate remedy advised. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
G.S.Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - The challenge in the petition is to the securitisation proceedings wherein while issuing notice dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short 'the Act') a demand of Rs.3,93,39,611.40/- was made.
2. The possession of the mortgaged property thereafter was taken on 14.10.2022 which is the subject matter of challenge including the public auction which was to be held.
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. Satyawati Tondon and others , (2010) 8 S
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists under statutory provisions, thereby emphasizing self-restraint by High Courts in recovery matte....
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
