Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Shakya vs Central Bank Of India on 9 August, 2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.16275/2019
Ramesh Chandra Shakya & Anr.
vs.
Central Bank of India Regional Office
1
Gwalior, dated 9.8.2019
Shri Anvesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Challenge put forth in this petition is to an order dated
23.07.2019 passed by Additional District Magistrate, District
Shivpuri under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002').
In the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon;
[(2010) 8 SCC 110], it has been observed by the Supreme Court in
paragraph 42 that a remedy by way of an appeal under section 17 of
the Act of 2002 can be availed even against an order passed
under section 14. It was held in Satyavati Tandon(supra) as under:-
"42. There is another reason why the impugned
order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any
tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Section 17and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.16275/2019 Ramesh Chandra Shakya & Anr.
vs. Central Bank of India Regional Office 2 the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective."
In view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the petition with a liberty to avail the remedy under section 17 of the Act of 2002.
Prayer is allowed.
The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioners are at liberty to seek relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
vv
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2019.08.09
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00' 17:38:27
-07'00'