YASH AGENCIES Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter pertains to a direction wherein the respondent-Bank has been sought to be restrained from handing over the property and assets of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4 pursuant to an auction held on 17.11.2018.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that loan has been advanced by the respondent-Bank in his favour, the same has come under the category of non performing asset due to which a proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act, 2002") has been initiated. The petitioner objected to such notice thereafter the Bank has taken action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and put the property on auction which has been purchased by the respondent No.4 which is now being questioned by the petitioner on the ground that he has filed one application for one time settlement but the same having been kept pending, the proceeding under the provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been initiated which action of the respondent-Bank cannot be said to be justified one.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that it is evident from Annexure-3 that the steps in accordance to the provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been taken and when the property has been put on auction which has been purchased by respondent No.4 which has also been confirmed, thereafter instant writ petition has been filed. He further submits that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding pendency of one time settlement scheme is not correct. He further submits that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been enacted in order to recover the public money by way of expeditious proceeding which is a self-contained Act containing the provision to approach before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the statutory provision, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India.