Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J
SRI MUNIRAJU P G – Appellant
Versus
M/S AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to civil court order regarding loan repayment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response from the bank regarding alternative remedies. (Para 3) |
| 3. court reiterates the need for exhausting statutory remedies. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. substantive remedies must be pursued instead of writ proceedings. (Para 6) |
| 5. final order disposing the writ petition with observations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order passed in Crl. Misc. No. 67/2024 by the Principal Senior Civil judge and CJM at Chikkaballapur.
2. Various contentions have been raised including that there was no due service of notice; that non repayment of loan was due to bonafide reasons and that there are procedural lapses.
3. Sri. Francis Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order of the Magistrate impugned herein could be challenged by resorting to substantive remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
4. It is relevant to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the appropriate remedy would be to relegate the petitioner to seek for substantive r
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
