Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Basanti Bai Jain – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges recovery notice citing lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. high courts must refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction when efficacious statutory remedies under sarfaesi and rdb acts are available. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
1. The petitioner who is guarantor towards the loan obtained by borrower i.e. respondent No. 4-Mr. Shubhas Chand Jain, has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the notice dated 23.01.2026 issued by the respondents/Central Bank of India under Rule 8(a) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) against the borrower as well as the guarantor towards recovery of loan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Balance Confirmation communication (Annexure P/11) issued from the Central Bank of India, Branch – Radhikanagar, the petitioner who is the guarantor is liable for payment of guarantee dated 11.03.2015 to the extend of Rs.13,30,000/-, whereas the Central Bank of India has issued notice (Annexure P/11) by which
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
