K JAYALALITHA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 9.9.2010 in Ref. No. HYDSB: CHANDANA: 1353: 2010, issued by the respondent bank under Section 13(3-A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), as illegal and arbitrary, and to set aside the same. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was carrying on business of BSNL franchise, for developing subscriber base for BSNL. In connection thereto, she availed loan from the respondent-bank. When her account became irregular, notice under Section 3.7.2010 was issued by the respondent bank under Section 13(2) of the Act directing her to pay an amount of Rs. 1,66,30,267.41 ps. together with further interest and incidental expenses and costs within sixty days from the receipt of the said notice. The petitioner sent a reply dated 3.9.2010 to the said bank. Not satisfied with the said reply, the impugned proceedings were issued by the respondent bank.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) According to the respondent bank, an amount of Rs. 1,66,30,267.41 ps. was due by the petitioner to the respondent-bank. Hence, the impugned proceedings were issued by the bank under Section 13(3-A) of the Act. Considering the amount involved in the matter and as the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the impugned proceedings, we are of the opinion that no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner in this writ petition. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 8 SCC 110, the Supreme Court held that the High Courts should not interfere in the cases where alternative remedy is available. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has specifically held in Paragraphs 53 and 55, as under: