PROMOD KR SINGHANIA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata and the order passed by the Recovery Officer, Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal.

(2.) Mr. Prasanta Kr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner appearing along with Mr. Sunil Biswas particularly assailed the order dated 4.11.2003, passed by the Recovery Officer, being Annexure P-10 to the writ petition on merits. He has relied on a judgement Budhia Swain & Ors. vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 2089 in support of the merits of the case.

(3.) Mr. Sabyfesachi Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 appearing alongwith Mr. Soumen Das raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petitioner if aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer ought to have availed himself of the statutory alternative remedy by preferring appeal as laid down under section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 30 is set out hereunder :