Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 11722 = 2014(3) L.A.R. 679
Decided on: 17.10.2014
Present: Mr. Bhal Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 13(2), 13(4), 17 -- Proceedings under SARFAESI Act – Writ jurisdiction -- One-time settlement -- Writ of mandamus declaring account of the petitioner as a NPA as illegal and also directing the Bank to offer benefit of non-discriminatory ‘One Time Settlement’ scheme -- Petitioner was served with a notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act -- Petitioner have filed objections to the said notice which were dismissed – Held, after the reasons are communicated in terms of Section 13(3A) of the Act, the petitioners have a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act after action under Section 13(4) of the aforesaid Act is taken by the Bank -- Since no action has been taken, the writ petition is not maintainable -- As and when the Bank initiates proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners will have a right to seek statutory remedy, which will be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
(Para 1-4)
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, claiming stay of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh in an Original Application filed by the Bank under the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and also claiming a writ of mandamus declaring the classification of the account of the petitioner as a Non Performing Asset as illegal and also directing the Bank to offer benefit of non-discriminatory ‘One Time Settlement’ scheme.
2. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner was served with a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) on 24.08.2013 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner is said to have filed objections to the said notice. It further appears that the objections were dismissed, as per the petitioners, on flimsy grounds but neither the objections nor the reasons communicated by the Bank are placed on record. Thereafter, the Bank has published a public notice on 05.10.2013(Annexure P-6).
3. After the reasons are communicated in terms of Section 13(3A) of the Act, the petitioners have a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act after action under Section 13(4) of the aforesaid Act is taken by the Bank.
4. Since no action has been taken, we find that the writ petition is not maintainable. As and when the Bank initiates proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners will have a right to seek statutory remedy and to raise all grounds as are raised in the present writ petition, which will be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law.
5. The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
********