9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (3) of section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by respondent No. 1 is valid in view of the Law laid down by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 51 SCL 513 . Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for petitioner, states that in the instant case notice under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the said Act is issued to the Petitioner on 9th September, 2003. The petitioner filed Objection to the said notice on 7th November, 2003. However, the said objection has neither been considered by respondent No. 1, nor there is any reasoned order passed by respondent No. 1 for rejecting the objection, nor the petitioner was communicated the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to take appropriate steps thereafter, according to law. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by respective counsel. perused the judgment of the Apex Court. The controversy in issue is concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the above referred decision and the relevant observations of the Apex Court in Paragraph 80 of the judgment read thus : "80. Under the Act in consideration, we find that before taking action a notice of 60 days is required to be given and after the measures under section 13(4) of the Act have been taken, a mechanism has been provided under section 17 of the Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The above noted provisions are for the purposes of giving some reasonable protection to the borrow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, dated 9th September, 2003, was neither considered by respondent No. 1, nor there is any reasoned order passed by respondent No. 1 for rejecting the said objection. Petitioner was also not communicated the decision on the objection by respondent No. 1. It appears that since the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court, vide Order, dated 21st November, 2003, prevented Respondent No. 1, from taking actual possession of the property pursuant to the notice, dated 9th September, 2003, no action under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act could be taken against petitioner. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, respondent No. 1 is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
