SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Pat) 651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Anjana Mishra, J.
Md. Feroz Alam - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
CWJC No. 10916 of 2013
Decided On : 08-02-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay Prasad, Jyoti Shankar, Pradip Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: AC to SC-18

Proper communication of rejection orders under the SARFAESI Act is essential, and non-compliance can vitiate subsequent actions by the bank.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale Notice - Section 13(2), Section 13(4), Section 9 of the PDR Act - The court quashed the Auction Sale Notice issued by the respondent-Bank, citing non-communication of rejection order to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court allowed the respondent-Bank to take appropriate legal remedies after due compliance with the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash an Auction Sale Notice issued by the respondent-Bank, alleging that it was against the settled principles of law and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had applied for a housing loan, but the Bank disbursed a lower amount and imposed installment conditions. The petitioner faced legal proceedings and objections, and the Bank issued the impugned notice without communicating the rejection of the petitioner's objection.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned notice was vitiated due to non-communication of the rejection order to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court quashed the notice but allowed the respondent-Bank to pursue legal remedies after complying with the relevant provisions of the Act.

Issues: Non-communication of rejection order, legality of the Auction Sale Notice, compliance with SARFAESI Act provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned notice was vitiated due to insufficient compliance with the provisions of law regarding communication of rejection orders. It emphasized the importance of proper communication and inferred that the provisions of the General Clauses Act regarding service by post should be applicable.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the Auction Sale Notice, and did not order costs. It permitted the respondent-Bank to pursue legal remedies in accordance with the SARFAESI Act after due compliance with its provisions.

ORDER :

Anjana Mishra, J.

1. The present application has been filed for quashing the "Auction Sale Notice" published in daily Hindi Newspaper "Hindustan" on 4th of May, 2013 fixing a date for auction of the sale properties on 5.6.2013. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the same, as according to him, it has been issued against the settled principles of law and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for sanction of housing loan amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs from the respondent-Bank but the Bank had disbursed only Rs. 4.5 lakhs and the terms and conditions, as fixed by the Bank, was an installment of Rs. 5,000/- per month for 15 years so as to liquidate the borrowed amount. It is further submitted that due to certain unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner could not continue payment of the installment amounts and, therefore, in the year 2011-12, a Certificate Case No. 1/11-12 was filed by the Bank. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed his objection in the said certificate case before the respondent-Bank. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also received notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to which he filed his objection but before the same could be disposed off, the respondent-Bank had proceeded to issue notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act. In pursuance of the said possession notice, the petitioner came to this Court in the year, 2012 vide CWJC No. 20595 of 2012 which was disposed off on 14.3.2013. The operative portion of the order passed in the aforesaid writ application reads as hereunder:-

"In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Certificate Officer, Begusarai to consider and dispose of the objection petition by the petitioners under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act in Certificate Case No. 1 of 2011-12 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Until orders are passed on the objection petition, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in the certificate proceeding.

So far as the SARFAESI proceeding are concerned, two weeks time is allowed to the petitioner to file their objection to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, which shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent Bank by a speaking order within a period of one week from the filing of the objection."

3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order clearly states that so far as the SARFAESI proceedings are concerned, he was allowed two weeks time to file his objection to the notice issued to him. Earlier, under Section 13(2) of the Act, the said objection was to be considered and disposed off by the respondent-Bank by speaking order within a period of one week from the filing of the objection. It is further submitted that by means of the same order, the Certificate Officer, Begusarai was also directed to consider and dispose off the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the PDR Act in Certificate Case No. 1/11-12 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The said certificate case reached its finality vide Ahnexure-5 dated 16.4.2013. The Certificate Officer directed the petitioner to deposit 10,000/- per month for realization of the loan amount in the first week of each month. It was also directed that in case, the petitioner would not deposit the amount regularly, warrant of arrest would be issued against him. The petitioner has been depositing the amount stated in the said order regularly since the date of the order till January, 2017. So far as the order with regard to the petitioner filing his objection before the respondent-Bank is concerned, the petitioner filed his representation/objection on 6.4.2013 but the respondent-Bank, without disposing of his applicatio













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top