2016 (9) TMI 1218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess. Petitioner however did not made any effort to serve on correct and complete address. Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.6. The matter is posted for consideration of I.A. No.4767/2016, an application for vacating the stay order dated 16.06.2015 filed by respondent No.6. Respondent No.6, as borne out from previous proceedings, was impleaded after his application for intervention was allowed on 04.04.2016. It was his contention that pursuant to the proceedings instituted by respondent-Punjab National Bank under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 (for brevity 'Act of 2002'), he (respondent No.6) purchased the property in quest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er also seeks quashment of order dated 17.01.2011 and command to respondent No.4 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jabalpur. So far as relief sought vide Paragarph 7 (iii) for quashment of order dated 17.01.2011. The said order is passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur in a proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and as per the decision by Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, the remedy lies before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. It was held in Satyawati Tondon (supra) that : "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." In view whereof, relief at paragraph 7 (iii) cannot be acceded to. The petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to take recourse to remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. As to the relief sought vide paragraph 7(i) and 7(ii), the material documents on record reveals that the land in question was mortgaged by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent-Punjab National Bank and because respondent No.4 failed to repay the loan, the Bank besides ini....