Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8442 (RAJ)

NITIN VIJAY SON OF SHRI KESHAV v. AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED

CW/5282/2025 · 2025-04-22

Anoop Kumar Dhand

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:16943] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5282/2025 1. Nitin Vijay Son Of Shri Keshav, R/o 134 A (South) Kalyan Kunj, Jhotwara, Jaipur Kalwar Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Lalita Devi Vijay W/o Keshav, R/o 134 A (South) Kalyan Kunj, Jhotwara, Jaipur Kalwar Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. 3. Kalyani Enterprises, 1St Jagganath Puri Kalwar Road, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor Nitin Vijay Son Of Shri Keshav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 134 A (South) Kalyan Kunj, Jhotwara, Jaipur Kalwar Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. 4. Smt. Ranjeeta Vijay, R/o 134 A (South) Kalyan Kunj, Jhotwara, Jaipur Kalwar Road, Jaipur Rajasthan At Present Plot No. 12, 13 Shanti Vihar B Vill Mahal, Jagatpura, Thesil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus AU Small Finance Bank Limited, Through Authorized Officer, Registered Office 19A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Vijay (through Video Conferencing) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice dated 17.10.2023 issued by the respondents to the petitioners under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’). 2. Admittedly, the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, but without availing the [2025:RJ-JP:16943] (2 of 2) [CW-5282/2025] same, the petitioners have straight away approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said Authority. 4. On this count alone, the writ petition stands rejected. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand rejected. 5. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the authority concerned for redressal of their grievances. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/23