2016 (2) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioner further seeks to impugn notice dated 26th May, 2014. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, he learned from his predecessor-in-title-respondent No.2 herein that respondent No.2 had been facing proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herienafter referred to as 'the SERFAESI Act') initiated by respondent-Bank. A notice under Section 13(2) was conveyed on 08th December, 2014. It is the case of the petitioner that property bearing Plot No.3/B, Block No.92/2, Revenue Survey No.107 at Village Motin Roli, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat was purchased by the petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to exercise the writ jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Section 17 of the SERFAESI Act confers right to appeal to any person, including borrower who may be aggrieved by any of the measures referred to under Section 13(4) of the Act taken by the secured creditor. Such aggrieved person is entitled to make an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter where the property is situated. It could not be gainsaid that right to appeal under Section 17 would be available to the present petitioner in the facts of the case as aggrieved person. 6. In Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank Vs Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366], the Apex Court held that remedy by of appeal under Section 17 is availa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e aforesaid S.A. No.122 of 2015 under Section 17 of the Act. The same is pending and the Tribunal is seized with the said proceedings. Interim directions have been operating in that matter. It relates to the controversy and the subject matter. It would be entirely appropriate that the petitioner approaches the Tribunal to agitate his rights by filing appropriate application in the said proceedings. In any view, therefore, the petitioner has to get his rights agitated by approaching the Tribunal which is a statutory remedy available. In Union Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] the Apex Court observed thus, "the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under ....