IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3505 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 26.02.2010 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Bank of Baroda and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Anil Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the possession notice dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act, 2002) read with Rule 8 (6) of the Enforcement Rules and for quashing any other consequential notice/order/action as also to set aside any subsequent resultant public notice for sale, auction or creation of any third party rights/interests in the site at which the company owned retail outlet of the petitioner is situated, being in violation of agreement (Annexure P-1), lease deed (Annexure P-2) as also in infringement of the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with 2005 Control Order besides violating the provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 read with Petroleum Rules, 2002 and also for violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Heard counsel for the petitioner. C.W.P.No.3505 of 2010 -2- The merits of the writ petition and the arguments as put forth by the counsel for the petitioner need not be referred to or elaborated herein as I am of the considered view that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the order passed under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This alternative remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail of the said alternative remedy by taking all objections/grounds which have been convassed in the present writ petition to object to the entitlement of the financial institution to take possession of the property in question before the alternative Forum. Counsel for the petitioner states that under a bona fide belief that the remedy of writ would lie against the impugned order, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition and, therefore, the period spent in prosecution of the case before this Court may be condoned and the same be excluded while computing the period for preferring an appeal before the Forum prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Prayer is granted. The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that if an appeal is filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present writ petition, shall not be considered towards the period of limitation for preferring such an appeal. February 26, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE