^-* © BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH-COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ln§!&Bei PETITIONER AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0... ?/.*.-> ..2006 SMT. PREMLATA JAIN Aged about Syears, W/o Late Shri Dhanraj Jain, R/o Ganjpara, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ^-NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT DURG. Niyaji Complex, Hotel New India, Station Road, Durg (C.G.) Through- Managing Director. 2. M/s RAJESH TRADERS, Ganjpara, Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES =L-'^€S2T- OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Uv^ ^J^^--'^,^^ XI-HC-22 sii^rw R-fi't'ail^T anwHfer sniiqi N, 3^';qraRCT, o^lwis, Rdl4fl|< Sii^i Ma<»» ,_ ,.^~// . .^.Ar3:fe-..)..tjp.;^1l^7o^ tllKfll **<l<* •^••»"^^—— g^ ft^' sii^r&wiwflfer Shri V.G. Tamaskar, coutise! for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Heard. Petitioner was sen/ed with notice in accordancs with Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and R^construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest the loan was not discharged wiitiin prescribed period, the bank initiated measures referred to in sub-sed :ion has been challenged (] answerable to the notice sen/ecj the respondent are barred by !inr| person aggrieved by anyofthe qii<ilfi41i tiifnTffte^<Ri«i< ^sri^tffsn^r Act, 2002 (henceforth;"theAcr). When tion 4 of Section 13 of the Act. Bank's n the ground that Detitioner is not on her, that apart the steps taken by itation. Learned counseS for the ^etitioner placed reiiance in.the matter of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chan^ier Rai and others, reported in (2003) sven alternative forum to petitioner may it be asked to pay secured amount and SCC675 and contended that be avaiiab'.e, but a widow cann4 to approach the Tribunal. Under Section 17 of the ^ct, statutory right has been provided to neasures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, tal|:en by the secured creditor, therefore, petitioner who has statutory rigitit shouid approach th®Tribunal instead of approaching this Court. Th^ case law referred by the petitioner is distinguishab!e on the facts of thfe case. With the aforesaid obs^rvation, this petition is iiabie to be dismissed summarilyand is^acc|ordingly dismissed. However, petitioner, 22?1 XI-HC-22 sn^rTT R-li<tl3I1^T aiin ofer stiin ."'v <3 .\v ^ 3^ •<<iqiciq, aTn«'is,Iqcii^y an^T <ra<^ fifdi n>*ii«t) V^ 200 RM 3fl^<l 6Wiq«fl6a if advised, may take appropriate with !aw. »t>i<itCT<()i<ii*<(iT¥tecA'<Ri'(ci< ^?3i1^iT3ti^?r recourse availabie to him in acsordance Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (^^pt)