Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010110522025 2025:GAU-AS:7335 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/186/2025 BANK OF BARODA HAVING BRANCH AT MB ROAD, NEAR IDD GAAH FIELD TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM - 784001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE KISHOR KUMAR DAS, S/O LATE DAMBARU DHAR DAS, R/O FLAT NO. 2E, 2ND FLOOR, RAJAT ENCLAVE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007, ASSAM VERSUS M/S GABHARU ENTERPRISE AND 2 ORS. (A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM) HALESWAR, GOROIMARI, P.O.- HALESWAR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM-784104 2:SIMANTA SAIKIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S GABHARU ENTERPRISE HALESWAR GOROIMARI P.O.- HALESWAR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM-784104 3:SMTI. MEENA SAIKIA W/O SRI SIMANTA SAIKIA HALESWAR GOROIMARI P.O.- HALESWAR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM-78410 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Advocate : Ms. P. Bhagat, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 04.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior assisted by Ms. P. Bhagat, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in OA No.98/2018 arising out of RC No.96/2022 and OA No.99/2018 arising out of RC No.66/2022. 3. This Court duly takes note of that the said order has been passed by the Recovery Officer-I of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati. A perusal of Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short ‘Act of 1993’) shows that against an order passed by the Recovery Officer, an appeal lies to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant proceedings when there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though submitted that the said remedy now cannot be said to be an efficacious and alternative remedy taking into account that the period of limitation for assailing an order is 30 days from the date on which a copy of the order was issued to him. It is the opinion of this Court that as the Debt Recovery Tribunal has a power to condone the delay, the said cannot be a ground for entertaining the present proceedings. Page No.# 3/3 5. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed without prejudice to file appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1993. JUDGE Comparing Assistant