Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Suresh Kumar Gaba – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the various notices and proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 2002 Act').
2. The demand notice dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) which has been appended with the writ petition would go on to show that the respondent-Bank put forth a demand of Rs.16,99,110/- for the housing loan bearing account No.29700600002699. Similarly another demand of Rs.25,43,762/- against the housing loan bearing account No. 29700600002736 had been made, thus, taking the outstandings to Rs.42,42,872/- The property which was mortgaged was a residential property bearing House No.228, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra measuring 388.5 square yards in the name of Neelam Gaba wife of Suresh Kumar Gaba, who are the petitioners No.1 and 2, respectively herein. The said notice was apparently followed up by a notice dated 25.03.2019 issued under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act, which has been placed on as Annexure A-1 alongwith the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners to the ap
Point of Law - It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and le....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act may render a writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable.
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
