MANISH PANDEY S/O SH. AVINASH CHAND PANDEY v. HOME FIRST FINANCE COMPANY INDIA LIMITED
CW/6919/2026 · 2026-07-16
Anand Sharma
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10158 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10158 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:27040] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6919/2026 URN: CW / 15224U / 2026 Manish Pandey S/o Sh. Avinash Chand Pandey, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Plot No. U-10, Balaji Vihar 29-A, Manchara, Loha Mandi, Harmada, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Presently Reside At C/o Sheela Mishra Flat No 104, Balaji Tower 5, Near Vivacity Mall, Akshaypatra, Jagatpura, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Seema Pandey W/o Manish Pandey Presently C/o Sheela Mishra Flat No 104, Balaji Tower 5, Near Vivacity Mall, Akshaypatra, Jagatpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Home First Finance Company India Limited, 605-606 City Corporate Tower, Above Mugal Rasoi, Near Agresan Circle, C - Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) And Registered Office At 511, M - Plaza, Andheripurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai Maharashtra Through Authorized Personnel.
2. Indrajeet Singh Yadav S/o Shree Lal Singh Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 3418, Shahari Jaisaalaya Vihar, Aakera, Dungar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302013. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/07/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the DRT'), whereby securitisation application filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
[2026:RJ-JP:27040] (2 of 2) [CW-6919/2026] Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') has been dismissed.
2. It is not disputed that remedy against order passed by the DRT while dismissing securitisation application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 is to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. No reason whatsoever has been mentioned by the petitioner not to approach Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and to directly file writ petition by passing the statutory remedy.
3. In view of above, where efficacious alternative remedy is available under the Act of 2002, this Court does not find any ground to directly entertain writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and same is hereby dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J 10/Jatin