( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the Auction notice dated 16-1-2006 issued by the 1st respondent Bank proposing to sell the properties belonging to the petitioner under section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is arbitrary and illegal.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the writ petitioner having availed a loan from the 1st respondent Bank for establishment of a poultry farm, by mortgaging certain immovable properties as security, committed default in discharging the same and consequently the account was classified as non-performing asset. Thereafter, the respondents while invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the securitisation Act, 2002), issued a notice dated 13-9-2005 under Section 13 (2) calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount due within 60 days. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the same, the respondents in exercise of powers under Section 13 (4)of the Act had taken possession of the secured assets on 28-9-2005 and 3-12-2005 and proposed to sell the same under the impugned Notice by inviting tenders.

( 3 ) IT is to be noted that by that time o. A. No. 204 of 2005 filed by the 1st respondent Bank against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts due under the very same loan account was pending in the Debts recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.

( 4 ) THE impugned sale notice is challenged in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the action of the respondents in invoking parallel remedies under the recovery of Debts due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, rdb Act, 1993) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Securitisation Act, 2002)simultaneously is impermissible and illegal. The further contention is that the mortgaged properties, being agricultural lands, are exempted from the provisions of the act under Section 31 (i) of the Securitisation act, 2002 and therefore they cannot be brought to sale under the impugned notice.

( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the plea of the writ petitioner that the mortgaged properties are agricultural lands and are exempted from the purview of the securitisation Act, 2002 has been denied. It is stated that the petitioner has been doing poultry business on the said lands and no agricultural activity is undertaken and therefore the provisions of Section 31 of the act have no application. It is further stated that the outstanding dues as on 31-3-2002 was Rs. 138. 47 lakhs and therefore the offer of Rs. 94. 84 lakhs under the One Time settlement (OTS) made by the petitioner was not accepted. Moreover, as per the norms of OTS scheme, the respondent cannot accept less than Rs. 94. 84 lakhs. Hence, the meagre amount of Rs. 55 lakhs offered by the petitioner could not be accepted and the same was informed to the petitioner by letter dated 11-7-2002 calling upon the petitioner to submit his revised offer. However, the petitioner came forward with an offer to pay a sum of Rs. 72 lakhs through his letter dated 28-8-2002. Hence, the same was not accepted. Thus, in spite of ample opportunity given to settle under OTS, the petitioner failed to avail the same. Since the account was classified as non-performing asset and no payment was forthcoming, the respondent Bank had invoked the provisions of the Securitisation act for realisation of the dues. Subsequently o. A. No. 204 of 2005 was filed in the debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad as the loan was getting time-barred.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

( 7 ) AS can be seen from the material on record, it is not in dispute that the loan account of the petitioner has been classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA)by the respondents on the ground of pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document