← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/17459/2010rejected

Ashok Kumar @Ashok Kr.Sah v. The Canara Bank And ORS

2015-04-10Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17459 of 2010 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kumar Sah, S/O Late Gulab Chand Shah, R/O Moh-Mia Chak, Chatti Road, P.S. Begusarai, Distt-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Canara Bank, J.C.Road, Bangalore, State Of Karnataka, through its Chief General Manager

2. The Chief General Manager, Canara Bank J.C.Road, Bangalore, Karnataka

3. The Zonal Manager, Canara Bank Zonal Office, Patna, Bihar

4. The Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office Muzaffarpur, Bihar

5. The Authorized Officer, SARFAESI Act, 2002, Canara Bank Regional Office, Muzaffarpur

6. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank Begusarai Branch , Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nakul Kr.Jamuar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2015 The issue involved in the present writ petition is the action taken by the respondent Canara Bank under Section 13(2) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002).

Under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the notice under Section 13(2), the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the prescribed authorities. But, instead of approaching the prescribed authorities, the present writ petition has been directly filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 itself and

Patna High Court CWJC No.17459 of 2010 (3) dt.10-04-2015 in view of the judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the present writ petition is completely misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the prescribed authorities for redressal of his valid grievances. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U