Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19956 of 2019 Petitioner :- Neelam Srivastava And Another Respondent :- State Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Archana Singh, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.
The petitioners are challenging the possession notice as well as auction notice in connection with the proceedings drawn under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The grievance of the petitioners is that it appears that the mother of the petitioners had been a guarantor of the loan amount taken by respondent no.3. She died in the year 2014 leaving behind the petitioners as her heirs and legal representatives, yet no notice of demand was served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, is not justified.
Be that as it may, Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, enables any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging such measures.
In view of the above, the petitioners have alternative remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 7.6.2019 Rishabh