Bombay High Court

CHANDRAKANT SAKHARLAL SURATWALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: KISHORE C SANT SUSHIL M GHODESWAR

Holding

The petition is dismissed because an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandrakant Sakharlal Suratwala, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by a bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court examined whether the petitioner could contest the notice and whether an alternative remedy existed. It held that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available and therefore cannot maintain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court indicated that the petitioner may approach the appropriate authorities if the law provides for such recourse.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner can challenge the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
Whether an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, rendering the writ petition unnecessary

Legislation cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s. 13(2)

Subjects

SARFAESI Act
Section 13(2)
notice
alternative remedy
writ petition
High Court

Judgment

Ethape                                (1)                  16-WP-9149-2016


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    16 WRIT PETITION NO. 9149 OF 2016
                     Chandrakant Sakharlal Suratwala
                                 VERSUS
                   The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                   ...
Mr. Yadnesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent-State..
                                    CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                               SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
                                    DATE     : 23rd JANUARY 2026.

PC :-

1.       By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice

issued by the Respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation

And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security

Interest Act, 2002. There is an alternative remedy available to the

petitioner. The petition therefore stands dismissed.

2.       It is open for the petitioner to approach appropriate authorities, if

law provides.



[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]                         [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…