9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Bank of India (SBI) advanced a term loan of Rs. 24 crores to the petitioner. On account of failure on the part of the petitioner in payment of installments, the loan account was categorised as 'Non Performing Assets" (NPA). The respondent-SBI approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur ( for short "the Tribunal") by way of original application for recovery of outstanding dues. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondent-SBI by way of an agreement entered into with the respondent no.1-Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co.Ltd. (AARCL), assigned its entire financial assets pertaining to the petitioner-M/s. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Limited together with all rights, interests and guarantees in terms of Section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e counsel appearing on behalf of AARCL, the respondent-caveator, submitted that as a matter of fact, aggrieved by the measure adopted by the respondent- AARCL for enforcement of the security interest, the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. It is submitted that the possession of the secured asset has already been taken. It is submitted that the petitioner having availed the remedy available under the relevant statute, the writ petition preferred deserves to be dismissed. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of "United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors." (2010) 8 SCC, 110, "General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent-AARCL at the bar, the petitioner has already availed the remedy available under Section 17 of the Act before the Tribunal. 8. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the present matter does not suggest any special feature warranting interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by passing the effective and efficacious statutory remedy available under the relevant statute. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to question the legality of the action taken by the respondent-AARCL under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act before the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
