Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (2) TMI 1267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... quash the same and to direct the Respondent to restore possession of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner in his supporting affidavit would contend that the Petitioner approached the Respondent/ Bank for credit facilities. On 7.1.1995, the credit facilities sanctioned by the Respondent were cash credit limit for ₹ 30 lakhs. 3. In respect of the action of the Petitioner, there was a claim by the Respondent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 for recovery of a sum of ₹ 33,18,464/- with interest at 15% per annum from 23.04.2003 with quarterly rests till realisation with costs. The Petitioner is stated to have filed a suit before this Court in C.S. No. 791 of 2003 which was transferred to C.S. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2) of the SARFAESI Act earlier on 19.9.2003 to which the Petitioner sent his objection on 17.12.2003, is not entitled in law to issue another notice under the same provision as has been now issued under the impugned notice dated 8.6.2009. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by virtue of the Petitioner's objection dated 17.12.2003 it will have to be taken that the notice dated 19.9.2003 issued by the Respondent stood closed and the Respondent/ Bank is estopped from issuing any notice under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Counsel also contended that entertaining a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act would otherwise, revive a time barred claim of the Respondent which cannot be permitted. Learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty of the Petitioner to the Bank, it has been dealt with in detail in the common order dated 4.12.2009 passed in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 and Counter Claim No. 1 of 2009. Therefore, as on date, there is a decree as against the Petitioner for a sum of ₹ 33,18,464/- with interest and costs. The Petitioner though would contend that his intention to file an appeal against the decree dated 4.12.2009, there are no details as to whether any appeal has been filed at all as on this date. That apart in paragraph Nos. 19, 23 and 24 of the affidavit of the Petitioner, there is a categoric statement made by the Petitioner to the effect that he has filed an appeal apparently invoking Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the notice issued under Sec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion 13(2) of SARFAESI Act once on 19.9.2003 and again by issuing subsequent notice on 8.6.2009. In the first place, the said contention need not be gone into in this writ petition since the Petitioner is stated to have chosen to challenge the subsequent notice issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, dated 23.11.2009 by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In any event, we do not find any statutory prohibition in law from issuing any fresh notice. Reliance placed upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner the decision of a learned single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab and Sind Bank AIR 2009 JH 14 cannot be applied inasmuch as that was a case where after the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions of the SARFAESI Act could not be pursued. Since the Debts Recovery Tribunal has now disposed of the Petitioner's Counter Claim as well as Respondent's O.A. the Bank has chosen to issue the impugned notice. In such circumstances, the action of the Respondent in having issued the present notice, cannot be faulted. The Petitioner also relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Krushna Chandra Sahoo v. Bank Of India AIR 2009 ORI 35 The facts involved in that case are totally unconnected to the issue involved in this case. In that case, the challenge was to the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, on the ground that the objections raised by the borrower to the notice under Section 13(2) of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates