Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40710 (RAJ)

PINKCITY PACKING PRIVATE LIMITED v. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (SIDBI)

CW/16534/2025 · 2025-12-09

Sandeep Taneja

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:49953] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16534/2025 Pink city Packing Private Limited, S-34, Shopping Centre, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur302019, Rajasthan Through Its Director Shri Rajesh Gupta S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, Aged 58 Yers, R/o S-33 To 36, Shopping Centre, Vivek Vihar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Small Industries Development Bank Of India (Sidbi), Sidbi Tower, 15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001 Through Its Authorized Officer Arv Unit, Lucknow-226001 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena with Mr. Khushal Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 09/12/2025 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 22.08.2025 issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2002’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that after issuance of the said notice dated 22.08.2025, respondent-bank has already taken symbolic possession of secured assets under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. 3. Section 17 of the Act of 2002 provides that any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred [2025:RJ-JP:49953] (2 of 2) [CW-16534/2025] to in sub-Section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor, may make an application to the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of filing an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act. 5. In view of availability of aforesaid alternate remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. 6. It goes without saying that the petitioner may raise all the objections including those raised in this writ petition before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J AVINASH GULERIA-13