ORDER :

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice dated 16.03.2015 (Annexure P/4). The said notice is a notice under Section 13(2) of “The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002” (in short “Act of 2002”). The challenge also is the subsequent notice dated 16.05.2015 (Annexure P/6) issued by the respondent- Bank seeking delivery of possession of the secured assets as detailed in the chart given in Annexure P/6.

2. The challenge to the said two notices is on two grounds, firstly in Annexure P/1 the petitioners were called upon to deliver the possession of two aircrafts apart from the other properties. So far as the demand for delivery of possession of the two aircrafts is concerned, the counsel for the petitioners referred to the express bar provided under Section 31(C) of the Act of 2002, which clearly stipulates that the provisions of Act of 2002 shall not apply to creation of any security in any aircraft as defined under Clause 1 of Section 2 of The Aircraft Act, 1934. The Second ground of challenge to Annexure P/4 and P/6 is on the ground that there is a clear non-compliance of a statutory provision as is required under Section 13(3A) of the Act of 2002.

3. The counsel for the petitioners referring to Section 3A submits that to the notice Annexure P/4 dated 16.03.2015, the petitioners had submitted a detailed reply/objection (Annexure P/5) on 01.05.2015. According to the petitioners, the said objection/rejection of the petitioners was filed within the prescribed time as is provided under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 and thereby the respondents were duty bound to take a decision on the said representation/objection within the prescribed time as provided under Section 3A of the Act of 2002 and Rule 3A of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. According to the counsel for the petitioners, in the absence of any decision taken by the respondent-Bank to the representation/objection filed by the petitioners, the entire proceedings would get vitiated. The counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of “Anil Kumar Agarwal v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank and Another” [AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 1].

4. The counsel for the respondent-Bank however opposing the petition submits that now that the respondent-Bank has issued the notice under Section 13(4), the only recourse now available for the petitioners would be to avail the remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 by preferring an appropriate proceeding before the concerned DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal).

5. The counsel for the respondent-Bank refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited and Others v. Umakanta Mohapatra and Others” [2019 13 SCC 497], so also the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “Shwet Chemicals India Private Ltd. v. State Bank of India” [2011 LawSuit (Chh) 102)]. Thus, prayed for rejection of the present writ petition.

6. The counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that so far as the notice under challenge Annexure P/4 dated 16.03.2015 is concerned, it does not reflect the mention of an aircraft, therefore the objection raised by the petitioners of the applicability of the Act of 2002 would not sustain. To this submission of the learned counsel for the Bank, the counsel for the petitioners referred to the document Annexure P/6 dated 16.05.2015, wherein the respondent-Bank has reflected in the chart of the properties, which have to be taken possession of, which includes two aircrafts.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, for proper appreciating the fact it would be first relevant to reproduce the provision of Section 31(c), so far as the provisions not being applicable in certain cases, which for ready reference is reproduced hereinunder:-

“31. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases.- The provisions of this Act shall not apply to