MOHD SALMAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Mohd. Arif, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 - State Bank of India.

(2.) As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, cash credit facility was taken by the respondent no.2 from the respondent no.1-State Bank of India. Default was committed in respect of the said facility. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Act") have been initiated. The Notice dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) and the notice dated 15.3.2011( Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) have been issued under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act for taking possession of the asset given as security for the said facility.

(3.) In United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tandon and others, 2010 8 SCC 110. their Lordships of the Surpeme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the 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 Act.