JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appeal is at the behest of Punjab National Bank and directed against order dated May 15, 2023 passed in WPA 11422 of 2023.

2. Impugned order is interim in nature.

3. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge restrained the appellant from taking steps in terms of a web notice dated April 29, 2023 in respect of the e-bidding.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the writ petitioner obtained both fund based as well as non-fund based credit facilities from the appellant. He submits that, the credit facilities were classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) with effect from June 6, 2021. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued on January 18, 2022. Despite receipt of the same, the writ petitioner did not respond thereto. Writ petitioner, however, submitted a proposal for one time settlement dated April 13, 2023. Such one time settlement was not accepted.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant thereafter decided to issue a web-notice dated April 29, 2023 in order to transfer the account of the writ petitioner, which is financial asset of the appellant to an asset reconstruction Company. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 5 of the Act of 2002 and submits that, an Asset Reconstruction Company within the meaning of Section 5 is entitled to purchase any financial asset of any banker or a financial institution.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the Master Direction –Reserve Bank of India Transfer of Loan Exposure Directions, 2021 dated September 24, 2021 updated as on December 5, 2022. He submits that, the appellant is governed by such Master Directions of 2021. He refers to definitions contained in such Master Directions of 2021 particularly to stress loan. He submits that, appellant is entitled to transfer its financial asset to an Asset Reconstruction Company in the event, the account mentioned in the financial asset is classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) or is a Special Mention Account (SMA). He refers to the Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stress Assets for the definition of Special Mention Account.

7. Referring to the facts of the present case, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the writ petitioner became a defaulter and its account was classified as NPA on June 6, 2021. He submits that, the web notice was issued on April 24, 2023. Between the period of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 dated January 18, 2022, till the web notice dated April 24, 2023, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the account of the writ petitioner became regular. Consequently, as on the date of the web notice being April 29, 2023, the account was not only a SMA but also NPA.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the writ petition was filed on May 8, 2023 and that the impugned order was passed on May 15, 2023. He submits that, the impugned order proceeds on the basis of wrong classification of the account as NPA. He submits that, the issue as to whether, the classification of the account as NPA was correctly done or not did not fall for consideration in the writ petition as issuance of a web notice for selling a financial asset did not require the account to be NPA. A banker can transfer a financial asset if the account is SMA. There is no finding by the learned Single Judge passing the impugned order of injunction restraining transfer the account concerned, that, the account cannot be classified as SMA also.

9. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, learned single Judge proceeded on the basis of classification of the account as NPA on June 4, 2021. According to him, learned Single Judge was required to consider the account either as SMA or NPA as on the date of the we