Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Amit Parwal Son Of Late Sh. Acharya Arun ... vs Bank Of Baroda on 22 May, 2019
Author: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Bench: Veerendr Singh Siradhana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9152/2019
Amit Parwal Son Of Late Sh. Acharya Arun Dev, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of 7 A Doctors Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi
Power Of Attorney Holder Of Sh. Abhinav Gattani, 482 Uxbridge
Road Pinner, Middle Sex Ha5 45L, United Kingdom Temporary
Address Resident Of 7 A Doctors Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bank Of Baroda, Having Its Registered Office At Mandavi,
Baroda (Gujarat) And Having One Of Its Branch Situate At
Jhalarapatan District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) Through Chief
Manager And Power Of Attorney Holder Mr. Banwari Lal
Sunda Son Of Chain Singh Arya.
2. M/s Rathi Synthetics And Silk Mills, A Partnershipship
Firm Having Its Office At F-6, Site-B, Surajpur Industrial
Area, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (U.p.) Through Its
Partner
3. Shri Krishan Kumar Rathi Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Rathi,
Resident Of Rathi House, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar.
4. Shri Rajkumar Rathi Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Rathi,
Resident Of Rathi House, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar.
5. Shri Manmohan Kumar Rathi Son Of Shri Ram Gopal
Rathi, Resident Of Rathi House, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar.
6. Smt. Chandrakalan Rathi Wife Of Shri Ram Gopal Rathi,
Resident Of Rathi House, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar.
7. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nehru
Palace, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Judgment / Order 22/05/2019 (D.B. SAW/971/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:19:37 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-9152/2019] The application (I.A. No. 705/2018), instituted by the petitioner for his impleadment as a party to the pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, has been declined vide impugned order dated 29th March, 2019, of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.
A glance of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act, 2002), would reflect that statutory remedy of appeal has been provided.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in the factual matrix of the case at hand for an alternative remedy is available.
Accordingly, writ application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J MADAN MEENA /374/80 (D.B. SAW/971/2019 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:19:37 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)