M/s Sunrise Aluminum Vs State Bank Of India And Another

Uttarakhand High Court 24 Sep 2024 Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2579 Of 2024
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2579 Of 2024

Hon'ble Bench

Pankaj Purohit, J

Advocates

Bilal Ahmed, N.S. Pundir, Dharmendra Barthwal

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred

Securitization And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 14

Judgement Text

Translate:

Pankaj Purohit, J

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.08.2023 passed under Section 14 of The Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act) whereby the respondents Bank

was directed to take possession of the secured assets i.e. mortgaged property.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents-Bank that the notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner

on

23. 08.2023 and petitioner remained silent without challenging the said order before any forum, available to him under law.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents-bank that pursuant to the aforesaid notice possession of the secured assets have already

been taken over by the bank on 05.09.2024. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents-bank that in between one year time has elapsed and

petitioner remained silent and did not proceed for any kind of settlement with the respondents-bank nor did he pay any single penny towards said

outstanding loan amount.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents bank further relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to

Appeal(C)No(s).22093-22094/2022;06.07.2023 M/s Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. V. Ganesh Murthy & Another whereby it has been held that writ

petition would not lie against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as the remedy is available to the borrower before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal established under The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

5. Accordingly, there is no scope to interfere with the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Read More
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Read More