9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time when the question of liability of the borrower to the bank and the question relating to the correct amount payable, are pending consideration before the Civil Court between the parties, is the question that has been posed in these cases. 2. Writ Petitioner was served with notice dated 10-2-2004 by the Punjab National Bank under section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act calling upon him to pay the amount of Rs. 6,17,058 towards the outstanding amount under the loan availed of by him in respect of M/s. M.S. Oils and Rs. 7,11,708 towards the outstanding amount under the loan availed of by him in respect of M/s. S.B. Bricks, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the notice; failing which it was informed that the secured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that though such a contention was urged before the learned Single Judge the same was not adverted to. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank Sri K.P. Sudheer took us through the various provisions of the Securitisation Act and submitted that the suits pending before the Civil Court is not a bar in invoking the provisions of section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Placing reliance on section 37 of the Securitisation Act, counsel submitted that the provisions of the Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having the effect by virtue of any such law. Counsel also referred to section 34, which states that no Civil Court shall ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Debts Recovery Tribunal, as the case may be. The expression, "without the intervention of the Court or the Tribunal" was used to show that the option is on the Bank to move the Civil Court or the Tribunal under the Act, but there is no bar under the statute that having approached the Civil Court, section 13(1) of the Act be not invoked. 7. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Surendranathan v. Kerala Financial Corpn. 1988 (2) KLT 186. Validity of sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act was challenged in this case as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it gives unguided and uncanalised power to take possession of the property of default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the Bank to enforce the claim under section 13. We may in this connection refer to section 37 of the Securitisation Act, which reads as follows : "37. Application of other laws not barred.--The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force." Above mentioned provisions would indicate that the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
