Md. Mainul Haque v. The Union of India and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 12.08.2024

Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the demand notice dated 08.03.2024 issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act should be set aside and the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2024 should be decided by the respondent authorities.

¶2On the other hand, Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submits that as there is an alternative remedy available under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner should avail of the same. He further submits that the petitioner did not submit any representation against the demand notice dated 08.03.2024 and has instead made an application dated

24.07.2024, for making a settlement of the loan amount, without proposing any amount.

¶3I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶4In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Education Society Vs. UCO Bank and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 258, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the petitioner, as an alternative remedy is available. In the above case, the Supreme Court has relied upon another of its' decision in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 118, wherein it Page No.# 3/3 has been held at para 55 as follows:- "55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection."

¶5In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioner to avail of the alternative statutory remedy available.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010159702024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4032/2024o MD.oMAINULoHAQUEo S/OoMATIURoRAHMANoPROPRIETORoOFoM/SoCHOICEoSHOEoSTOREoR/Oo VILLoKHATABARIoNALBARIoTOWNoWARDoNO.o1o P.O.oANDoP.S.oNALBARIo PINo781335o DIST.oNALBARIoASSAM VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo3oORSo REPoBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVToOFoINDIAo MINISTRYoOFoFINANCEoNEWoDELHI 2:INDIANoBANK oREPoBYoITSoCHAIRMANoHEADoOFFICEo AToAVVAIoSHANMUGAMoSALAIoROYAPETTAHo CHENNAIoTAMILNDUo600014 3:THEoZONALoMANAGER oINDIANoBANKoALLAoREGIOANLoOFFICEo ULUBARIoGUWAHATIo781007 4:THEoBRANCHoMANAGER oINDIANoBANKo(ALLA)oNALBARIo BALITARAoBRANCHoP.OoANDoPSoNALBARIo DIST.oNALBARIoASSAMoPINo78133o AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oSoNATH,oMS.oMoBAISHYA,RoSAHAo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oDY.S.G.I.,oSC,oINDIANoBANKoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA