SHESH NARAIN AND SONS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner took Cash Credit Facility for business purposes from the Respondent No. 4-Bank of Baroda in the year 2005. The Petitioner committed default in the said facility. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Securitization Act") have been initiated against the Petitioner.

(2.) We have heard Shri Vishwa Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and Shri Manish Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4- Bank of Baroda.

(3.) In United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tandon and Ors., 2010 8 SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act.