Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
M/s.DRS Aqua Products – Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer/The Branch Manager, Canara Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges sarfaesi proceedings including sale. (Para 1) |
| 2. writ not maintainable due to drt alternative remedy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioner already filed sa before drt madurai. (Para 4) |
| 4. dismiss writ; pursue remedy at drt. (Para 5 , 6) |
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the impugned proceedings under provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3.At the outset, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as against the order passed under Section 14 of the Act.
4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has already challenged the impugned proceedings under the SARFEASI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, by filing S.A.No.SR 6647 of 2024 of 2026, which is pending.
5. In such circu
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
