HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 26402 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Harish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sagar Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioners have preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned possession notice dated 09.07.2025 Under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Annexure No.1 to to the writ petition) which has been issued by respondent no.2 i.e. Authorized Officer, Capri Global Capital Limited, Branch Office: 9-B, 2nd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi- 110060 against the petitioners. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Authorized Officer, Capri Global Capital Limited, Branch Office: 9-B, 2nd Floor, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110060 to take the default amount from petitioners in easy installments as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 i.e. Branch Manager, Branch Office: 2nd Floor, Singhal Eya Hospital, 3/339, Ramghat Road, Mahaveer Park Extension, Gulzar Nagar, Hem Chand Compound, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh-202001 to give the statement of account to the petitioners within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Today when the matter is taken up, preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent that against the aforesaid order, statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file an appeal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harish Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sagar Mehrotra, Tanmay Sadh Smt. Poonam Gupta And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction as provided under Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 620. 4. In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. October 6, 2025 Gaurav Kuls WRIC No. 26402 of 2025 2 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad