Mohammad Siddiq v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37680 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohammad Siddiq Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anadi Srivastava,Satyam Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.

¶1The petitioner before us is a borrower. When the loan in question, which the petitioner had taken, was not paid, respondent No.4 was transferred the responsibility of recovering the loan amount from the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into an assignment agreement, which contained arbitration clause.

¶2Upon getting the notice under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that there was an arbitration clause in the assignment agreement. Petitioner relied upon the provision of Section 11 of the Act .

¶3Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are definitely of the view that upon getting notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioner ought to have contested the matter either by replying to the notice or approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The provision of Section 11 of the Act and arbitration clause contained in the assignment agreement do not apply to the petitioner.

¶4Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted. The petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Kuldeep High Court of Judicature at Allahabad