ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED Vs. BHERU LAL SALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide impugned order dtd. 20/7/2023, learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9987/2023 (Bheru Lal Salvi Vs. Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.) filed by the respondent without considering the fact that the respondent is having an alternate and efficacious remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the DRT') under Sec. 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SARFAESI Act").

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413 and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the High Court should not interfere in the matter particularly in the loan matters when the aggrieved person is having an alternate remedy under the SARFAESI Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside.