Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr Vinay Shanker, learned Counsel for the Bank.
(2.) THE Petitioner, who is alleged to have been a Guarantor to a loan advanced to the opposite party Nos. 6 and 7, being aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 moved an application under Section 17 of the Act which was rejected by the order dated 4.1.2010. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 under Section 18(2) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that her signatures have been obtained fraudulently by the opposite parties 6 and 7 in connivance with the bank and as soon as she came to know the aforesaid fact, she filed an FIR in which investigation was concluded and charge sheet was also filed. Subsequently, the Petitioner has also filed a Suit No. 118 of 2008 and a preliminary issue was also framed in the Suit as to whether the Suit is maintainable or not in view of the Securitization Act, as Section 34 specifically bars the institution of proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure. The said issue was decided in favour of the Petitioner and after recording a finding of fact, the application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed vide order dated 21.8.2009. Being aggrieved, the Bank filed a writ petition No. 6093 (MS) of 2009, which is pending in this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the condition is not so onerous or oppressive or arbitrary or unreasonable that legislative wisdom has to be put in judicial scanner by entertaining the writ petition. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the Calcutta High Court's judgment passed in Star Textiles and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., [2009 (1) B CLR 401 (Cal)].;