Chandradeo Singh v. State Bank Of Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1135 of 2013 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7416 of 2008 =========================================================== Chandradeo Singh, Son of Late Jagruk Singh, Resident of Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh Colony, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Town And District- Patna .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Bari Path, P.S. Pirbahore, Town And District Patna Represented Through Its Branch Manager

2. Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Bari Path, P.S. Pirbahore, Town And District Patna

3. Chief Manager, Advance, State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office-III, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Maijorwar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 01-03-2017 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 06th of September, 2012 whereby the challenge to the proceedings initiated against the appellant under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") remained unsuccessful. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Bank has instituted title suit which stands decreed and the Bank has filed execution case as well, therefore, the

Patna High Court LPA No.1135 of 2013 dt.01-03-2017 2/2 proceedings under the SARFAESI Act could not have been initiated. We do not find any merit in the argument. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transcore v. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 125, has held that the action under the SARFAESI Act is not the alternative, but it is in addition to the remedies provided to the Bank under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

It shall be open to the appellant to avail such other remedy as is available to him in accordance with law. However, the grant of liberty shall not be construed as an expression on the remedy which the appellant may choose to avail.

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Mishra AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date Transmission Date