2016 (5) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th June, 2015, passed by the Mamlatdar & Executive Magistrate, which is the order for taking possession of the property in question, pursuant to order of the District Magistrate, Surat-the first respondent herein passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said order by the District Magistrate came to be passed on 29th May, 2015 and the impugned one was a consequential action. 3. In respect of the financial assistance taken by the original borrower from respondent No.2 Bank, the present petitioners stood guaranteers. The loan account was declared as Non Performing Asset by the Bank as the defaults occurred in repayment. That led the second respon....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as may be permissible in law. 5.1 In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others [ (2010) 8 SCC 110], the Supreme Court observed thus, "the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and St....