9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Challenge to notice issued under section 13 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the notice issued by the respondent bank under section 13 of the Ordinance, claiming to have repaid the outstanding amount. The petitioner contended that the notice was bad on facts as they had already discharged their outstanding dues and had provided detailed factual replies to the bank's notice, which were allegedly not considered. The petitioner approached the court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the impugned notice. 2. The court held that it cannot examine the legality of the notices sent by the bank at this stage through a writ petition. The court emphasized that it cannot act as a fact-finding authority and that it is the petitioner's responsibility to approach the bank to prove repayment of dues. The court highlighted that the jurisdiction of the bank to issue such notices cannot be questioned as the ordinance does not empower the bank to call for repayment. The court also noted that the petitioner did not challenge the notice on jurisdictional grounds or question the validity of the provision empowering the bank to issue such notices. 3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned notice was akin to an order and could be challenged through a writ petition. However, the court disagreed, stating that such challenges could only be made if the vires or constitutional authority of the ordinance was questioned, which was not the case here. The court further rejected the argument that the notice was factually incorrect, emphasizing that such factual disputes should be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, such as an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 13(4) of the ordinance. 4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the bank to examine the petitioner's case and communicate the outcome to the petitioner to resolve any issues arising from the impugned notice. The court maintained that it was not within its jurisdiction to delve into factual disputes and that the legislative intent behind the ordinance must be respected, with parties resorting to the appropriate legal remedies for any grievances.
|
