( 1 ) THE reliefs claimed in the suit have been reproduced at paragraph 37 of the petition:

" (a) The letter notice dated March 24, 2009 being Annexure "i" hereof be adjudged null and void and be delivered up and cancelled; (b) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from acting contrary to or in any manner inconsistent with terms of the agreement between the parties as recorded in paragraph 16 above and from effecting recoveries in a manner contrary thereto; (c) Alternatively decree for determination of the amounts due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent and a decree be made for such sum as may be found upon enquiry, in favour of the respondent; (d) Receiver; (e) Injunction; (f) Attachment; (g) Costs; (h) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs".

( 2 ) BY a letter dated February 28, 2009 the defendant bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002. The bank put the plaintiff on notice in terms of Section 13 (2)of the Act that the constituent was not to transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise the secured assets detailed in schedule 'c' to the notice without obtaining the written consent of the bank. The bank's claim was in excess of Rs. 20 crore.

( 3 ) ON March 6, 2009 the plaintiff submitted a letter to the bank in response to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. The plaintiff proposed restructuring of the debt. Following the receipt of such proposal the bank responded on March 24, 2009 dealing with the merits of the plaintiff's proposal and announcing that it was not viable. The bank duly discharged its obligation under Section 13 (3a) in responding to the restructuring proposal.

( 4 ) THE bank thereafter took steps under section 13 (4) of the Act.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff instituted this suit with leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code and sought reliefs as indicated hereinabove. The principal relief claimed is in respect of the letter dated March 24, 2009. The mischief that the plaintiff has set afoot is apparent on a reading of Section 13 (3a) of the said Act of 2002.

( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (3a) was introduced in november, 2004 following the observation of the Supreme Court in the Mardia Chemicals case (2004) 4 SCC 311 : (AIR 2004 SC 2371 ). Prior to the insertion of such sub-section, a secured creditor was not obliged to consider any representation made by a borrower following the receipt of a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Section 13 (2)provides a 60 day time to the borrower to discharge his liabilities in full to the secured creditor. In the absence of sub-section (3a), a secured creditor was only to wait for the payment demanded by its notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act and if it was not made, on the 61st day after the notice under Section 13 (2), such creditor could proceed to take recourse to one or more of the measures referred to in Section 13 (4) of the Act to recover the secured debt.

( 7 ) WITH the introduction of S. 13 (3a) the secured creditor has now to consider any representation or objection that is made by a borrower after the receipt by the borrower of the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Under the new sub-section, in the event a secured creditor finds a representation or objection unworthy, the secured creditor is obliged to communicate the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower. The proviso to sub-section (3a) however precludes a borrower from immediately assailing the rejection by the secured creditor of the representation or objection. The wording of the proviso is such that the challenge to the rejection can be carried at a later stage but not to pre-empt any action that a secured creditor may take under the said Act consequent upon rejection of the representation or objection.

( 8 ) SECTION 17 of the Act of 2002, gives any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13 (2) of the Act taken by a secured

Click Here to Read the rest of this document