Koneru Venu Madhav v. The Kotak Mahindra Bank

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.15350 of 2018 Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a possession notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. Heard Mr. M.K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. There is no single reason as to why the petitioner should bypass the alternative remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section of the Securitisation Act, 2002. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this writ petition is dismissed. The interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

________________ J.UMA DEVI, J.

26th April, 2018.

Ak

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI Writ Petition No.15350 of 2018 [per VRS, J.] 26th April, 2018.

(Ak)