9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) during the pendency of proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act). 2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. 3. Right of the assignee (2nd respondent) to step into the shoes of the assignor (1st respondent) and pursue remedies under the Act. Detailed Analysis: Entitlement to Initiate Proceedings Under the Act: The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent, having initiated proceedings under the 1993 Act by filing O.A. No. 308 of 2000, is disabled from proceeding under the Act. However, the court clarifies that Section 35 of the Act provides that its provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law. Section 37 of the Act states that the Act's provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of the 1993 Act. Thus, a creditor has the choice to pursue remedies under either the 1993 Act or the Act, and this choice is not extinguished by the initiation of proceedings under the 1993 Act. The court emphasizes that the non obstante clauses in Sections 5 and 35 of the Act fortify this view, allowing the 1st and 2nd respondents to proceed under the Act despite the pendency of O.A. No. 308 of 2000. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 13(2) of the Act: The notice dated 30-8-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act is challenged by the petitioner. The court notes that Section 13(1) of the Act allows a secured creditor to enforce security interest without court intervention, and Section 13(2) provides that upon default by the borrower, the secured creditor may issue a notice requiring repayment within 60 days, failing which the creditor can exercise rights under Section 13(4). The court finds that the issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) is valid and consistent with the statutory framework. Right of the Assignee to Pursue Remedies: The petitioner argues that the 2nd respondent, as the assignee of the 1st respondent, cannot invoke the Act's provisions due to the pending O.A. No. 308 of 2000. The court refers to Section 5(2) of the Act, which deems the assignee to be the lender with all rights of the assignor. Section 5(4) clarifies that ongoing proceedings related to the financial asset are not prejudicially affected by the assignment and can be continued by the assignee. The court concludes that the 2nd respondent has the uncontestable right to step into the position of the 1st respondent and pursue proceedings under the Act. Precedent and Conclusion: The court references the Supreme Court decision in Transcore v. Union of India, which held that withdrawal of proceedings under the 1993 Act is not a pre-condition for taking recourse to the Act. The court finds no infirmity in the notices issued by the 2nd respondent and dismisses the writ petition, emphasizing that the provisions of the Act allow for simultaneous proceedings under both the Act and the 1993 Act. Conclusion: The court dismisses the writ petition, affirming the validity of the notices issued under the Act and the right of the 2nd respondent to pursue remedies under the Act despite the pending proceedings under the 1993 Act. The judgment underscores the legislative intent to provide creditors with multiple avenues for debt recovery and the paramountcy of the Act's provisions over other laws.
|
