D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly because of an action initiated by the concerned respondent bank under Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Industrial Act, 2002.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears from the fact of the case that the petitioner has taken loan of sizeable amount approximately, of the amount, more than Rs. 16 Lakhs under the different heads. The amount due, has not been paid by the present petitioner. (ii) It also appears from the fact of the case that statutory notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 09th November, 2006 and, thereafter, the possession notice has also been issued on 22nd of January, 2007. (iii) It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that auction of the property, in question was fixed on 11th April, 2008 and thereafter the auction was held to the property of the petitioner and the sale was confirmed on 16th May, 2008. Thus, the respondent No. 3 is auction purchaser of the property in question through the aforesaid process of law. (iv) It appears that despite remedy available to the present petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which is efficacious alternative remedy; same has not been availed by the present petitioner. There is also provision to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 2002. Thus, petitioner is not remedy less Ubi jus ibi remedium. (v) It appears that time and again, orders for depositing the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs, has been passed vide order dated 24th June, 2008 as well as the order dated 18th March, 2009, whereby the entire balance, outstanding dues were directed to be paid by the petitioner, the same has not yet been complied. Petitioner is fond of preferring interlocutory applications, but is not complying orders passed by this Court.
(3.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I am not inclined to exercise, extra ordinary jurisdiction in exercise of the power conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no substance in this petition and hence the same is dismissed.;