9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Writ Petition is entertained, the purpose of the Act will be defeated. In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, it is clear that the Ordinance as such was not in force as on the date of the impugned proceedings. In view of the same, liberty is given to the respondents to further proceed with the matter in accordance with Law. With the above observation, the writ Petition as disposed of. It is needless to say that the further proceedings, if any in pursuance of the Ordinance cannot be further proceeded within the light of the liberty which is being given to the respondents in this regard. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinance was repealed and hence any action taken or anything done under the said Ordinance would be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding sections of the Act. Rules had also been framed under the Act and according to the rules an Authorised Officer who is of a rank not less than a Chief Manager of a Public Sector Bank or equivalent would be authorised to exercise the rights of a secured creditor. A notice will have to be issued calling upon the borrower to repay the amount. If the amount is not repaid within the time specified, the Authorised Officer shall proceed to realise the amount by taking one or more measures as contemplated under section 13(4) of the Act. It is further stated that the Act was amended by Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Loss (Amendment) Act, 2004. According to the amendment to section 13, the creditor is afforded an opportunity to raise any objections or submit any representation to the secured creditor against any notice received by him and the secured creditor shall consider such representation, but such a remedy was not available under the Ordinance. It is also further stated that according to section 31 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pass such other suitable orders. In the counter affidavit filed it is stated that the respondents-Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 12,50,000 for establishing his business of Cable TV Network at the request of the 1st petitioner. On 12-9-2003, the 1st petitioner executed the loan documents and petitioners 2 to 5 stood as guarantors. All the petitioners including the 1st petitioner had mortgaged their respective properties by depositing the title deeds towards security for repayment of the loan availed by the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner failed to repay the loan as agreed upon and the loan account of the 1st petitioner was classified as Non Performing Asset as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. It is further stated that to recover the said loan amount, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act and issued notice dated 23-7-2005 under section 13(2) of the Act demanding the petitioners to repay Rs. 13,31,531 due, with interest within 60 days failing which the Bank will exercise the powers under the Act. In the said notice the Bank had given the particulars of the properties which were charged to the Bank. While sending the said notice, the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were prohibited under section 31 of the Act. The agricultural property was not taken possession under section 13(4) of the Act. The properties which are mentioned in the notice under section 13(4) are all the house sites and house properties. Therefore the Bank had not violated any of the provisions under the Act. The amount due by the petitioners is more than Rs. 13 lakhs and not less than 20 per cent of the principal amount of Rs. 12.50 lakhs and interest thereon as alleged by the petitioners. It is further stated that the Bank officials had not threatened the petitioners to dispossess them by taking the help of Army personnel and never used any coercion to pay the loan amount. The respondents-Bank had initiated the action under the Act and issued the statutory notices in accordance with Law. Instead of repaying the loan amount, the petitioners had approached the Court with false and untenable grounds by way of Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is not maintainable and the petitioners had not made out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also further stated that the President of India promulgated the Ordinance on 21-6-2002 as the Parliam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
