9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. Consequentially, property in question, possession of which is taken over, will be required to be reentrusted by respondent Bank to the petitioner by drawing appropriate Panchnama, with further condition that it would be open to the respondent Bank to deploy security for guarding of the property and there will be further prohibitory injunction against the petitioner not to transfer or alienate the possession, title or rights in the property in any manner whatsoever for a period of four months from the date of re-entrustment of the property by the respondent Bank to the respective petitioners. As the action taken by the Bank under the Securitisation Act prior to January, 2013 is not held to be legal and valid and is declared illegal, consequential action as that of authorisation or order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act would also no more survive - Petition disposed off. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9442 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10642 of 2015 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11203 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA MR MASOOM K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... store the possession of Plot No. 1, Survey No. 143 / 1, Pharmaceuticals Industries Owners Association, Moje Adhana, Tal : Kalol, Dist : Gandhinagar to the petitioner. (g) Be pleased to quash and set aside the auction sale notice issued by the Respondent No. 2 Bank dated 08.05.2015. 3. In Special Civil Application No.10642 of 2015 the petitioner has prayed as under. (a) be pleased to declare section 2 (1) (c) (iva) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Principal Act (Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002) and declare it as null, void ab initio and non-est and action taken by Respondent Bank under Securitisation Act, 2002 as illegal, without authority of law, null and void. (b) Be pleased to quash and set aside s. 2(d)(vi) of the Recovery of debts due to bank and financial institutions act, 1993 as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Principal act (Recovery of debts due to bank and financial institutions act, 1993) and declare it as null, void ab initio and non-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts due to bank and financial institutions act, 1993) and declare it as null, void ab initio and non-est. (c) Be pleased to declare the s. 56 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, 1950. (d) Be pleased to declare the Reserve Bank of India's Master Circular- Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning and Other Related Matters UCBs dated July 1, 2014 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, 1950 and/or Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act no. 54 of 2002). (e) Be pleased to quash and set aside entire proceedings under Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Principal Act (Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) and declare it as null, void ab initio and non-est and action taken by Respondent Bank under Securitisation Act, 2002 as illegal, without authority of law, null and void. (f) Be pleased to quash and set aside the section 13(2) Notice dated 04.12.2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are so desirous and at that stage rights and contentions of both the sides may be kept open. He also submitted that in all the three cases respondent Bank in the purported exercise of powers under the Securitisation Act prior to the amendment in Securitisation Act has taken over the possession of the property in question. Since the action cannot be said to be legal as per the abovereferred decision of this Court in case of Neel Oil Industries (supra), the same should be returned to the petitioner with any condition which may be deemed fit by this Court. 7. Whereas Mr.K.K. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that as the action was prior to the amendment made for inclusion of Multi State Cooperative Bank, the Bank may re-entrust the possession but interest of the Bank may also be sufficiently protected inasmuch as the petitioner should not transfer or alienate the possession of the property to any one else. He also submitted that the respondent Bank should be at liberty to initiate fresh action under the Securitisation Act by issuance of Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act in accordance with law and the Bank should also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
