BABITA VISHNOI & ANR. vs BANK OF BARODA

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 17th February, 2025 % LPA 114/2025, CM APPLs. 9292/2025, 9293/2025, 9294/2025 & 9295/2025 BABITA VISHNOI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. with Mr.Pawan Kumar and Mr. Satish Kumar, Advs. versus BANK OF BARODA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.Shivam Saini and Mr. Satyadev Prakash, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us in this Letters Patent Appeal (hereinafter referred to as ‘LPA’). 2. This appeal questions the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 13798/2024, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants/petitioners has got the statutory remedy available to them by way of invoking Section 18 of the LPA 114/2025 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:19.02.2025 16:53:46 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’) and filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has submitted that for filing an appeal, the appellants/petitioners will be required to make certain deposit in terms of the requirement of the second proviso mandated under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and has thus stated that such commercial incapacity should not come in the way of the appellants/petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of their grievances. 4. The appellants/petitioners by filing the writ