9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. Thirdly, we now find from the written submissions submitted by the Bank that it has taken possession of the secured assets of Devi Ispat on 25th May 2013 and 27th May 2013 under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and a possession notice has also published in the newspapers on 31st May 2013. On the facts on record and the statutory remedy having been availed of, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court. However, it is left open to Devi Ispat to take such appropriate steps as may be considered necessary for safeguarding its interests. - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19466 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2014 - Gyan Sudha Misra And Madan B. Lokur, JJ. JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 2013 intimating Devi Ispat that its account had been classified as an NPA on 16th January 2013 and it was requested to regularize the accounts position within seven days. 6. Instead of regularizing its accounts, Devi Ispat sent a reply on 22nd January 2013 pointing out that the cash credit account had been operated on 19th October 2012 and therefore its declaration as an NPA on 16th January 2013 (that is on the 90th day instead of on completion of 90 days) was in violation of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 7. The Bank then issued a notice to Devi Ispat under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) on 28th Januar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17 or the Court of District Judge under section 17A. 11. After the dismissal of its writ petition, Devi Ispat made a representation to the Bank under Section 13(3A) of the Act on 22nd March 2013. This was followed almost immediately thereafter by an intra court appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge. Although the appeal was filed on 1st April 2013 (and we have gone through the contents of the appeal memo) there is no mention of Devi Ispat having made a representation to the Bank under Section 13(3A) of the Act. 12. Be that as it may, the representation was considered by the Bank and rejected on 2nd April 2013. The Division Bench was informed of this during the hearing of the intra court appeal on 26th April 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medy having been availed of by Devi Ispat, nothing really survived in the dispute raised. 18. Thirdly, we now find from the written submissions submitted by the Bank that it has taken possession of the secured assets of Devi Ispat on 25th May 2013 and 27th May 2013 under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and a possession notice has also published in the newspapers on 31st May 2013. 19. On the facts on record and the statutory remedy having been availed of, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court. However, it is left open to Devi Ispat to take such appropriate steps as may be considered necessary for safeguarding its interests. 20. There is no merit in this petition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
