HELEN MARY Vs. CANARA BANK SAINIKPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to extend one time settlement opportunity to her in respect of Flat bearing No. 201 admeasuring 900 sft, 2nd Floor, Sri Sai Residency, Safilguda, Secunderabad, and to grant six months time for payment of the outstanding balance. The property in question was originally belong to respondent No. 3, who availed loan from respondent No. 1 - bank. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for purchase of the flat. The petitioner statedly paid token advance of Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No. 3 and took possession of the property on 18.8.2008. The petitioner was told by respondent No. 3 that he would clear the loan amount of the bank whenever the money is given to him by the petitioner on instalment basis as per the agreement. As there was default in repayment of the loan, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), was issued to petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the prayer as aforesaid.

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

(3.) It appears that there was default in repayment of the loan due to the respondent bank relating to the property in question. Hence, proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act were initiated by the bank. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy, 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: