Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 1158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Naveen Kumar & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Canara Bank - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 5697 of 2022, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16976 of 2022
Decided On : 11-04-2022
Sidharth Chopra, Advocate, Navneet, Advocate, Anju Jain, Advocate, Hitesh Sachar, Advocate, Prachi Jain, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act, which governs the consideration of objections raised by the petitioners against a notice served under Section 13(2) of the act.
Headnote:
SaRFaESI act - Notice under Section 13(2) - The court disposed of the writ petition based on the respondent/bank's assurance to consider a communication as a representation/objection under Section 13(3a of the SaRFaESI act, with liberty for the petitioners to seek further remedy if necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi, regarding a notice served on the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the SaRFaESI act. The petitioners had raised objections to the notice, and the court was informed that the respondent/bank had not disposed of the objections as required under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition based on the respondent/bank's assurance to consider a communication as a representation/objection under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act, with liberty for the petitioners to seek further remedy if necessary. The court also directed that no precipitate steps should be taken by the respondent-bank against the petitioners until a decision was conveyed regarding the communication.
Issues: The issues involved the respondent/bank's consideration of the communication as a representation/objection under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act and the petitioners' right to seek further remedy if the decision was not favorable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the respondent/bank's assurance to consider the communication as a representation/objection under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act and the petitioners' liberty to seek further remedy if necessary.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the pending application was closed, with the respondent/bank agreeing to consider the communication as a representation/objection under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act, and the petitioners being granted liberty to seek further remedy if necessary.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - On the previous date i.e., 05.04.2022, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, the following had been recorded:
'2. This writ petition, inter alia, is directed against the order dated 01.04.2022, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi [in short, 'DRT'] in Sa No. 144/2022.
3. a perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 shows that a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 [in short, 'SaRFaESI act'] dated 06.04.2021, has been served on the petitioners by the respondent-bank.
3.1. This fact is not disputed by Mr Kirti Uppal, who appears on behalf of the petitioners.
3.2. Mr Uppal says that objections were preferred by the petitioners to the above-mentioned notice. In this behalf, our attention has been drawn by Mr Uppal to annexure P-10, appended on page 77 of the case file.
3.3. The document appended to annexure P-10 is a communication dated 24.05.2021. Facially, this communication has been addressed to the MD and CEO, Canara Bank Ltd. However, the said communication does not, specifically, advert to the Section 13(2) notice issued by the respondent/bank, referred hereinabove.
3.4. according to Mr Uppal, there has been no disposal of the objections preferred by the respondent, as required under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act.
4. Issue notice to the respondent-bank, via all permissible modes, including e-mail.
5. List the matter on 11.04.2022.'
2. Mr Hitesh Sachar has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/bank.
2.1. Mr Sachar says that the communication dated 24.05.2021 is not a representation or objection, which addresses the aspects alluded to in the Section 13(2) notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 [in short, 'SaRFaESI act'], by the respondent/bank.
3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid contention, Mr Sachar says the respondent/bank will consider the communication dated 24.05.2021.
3.1. Mr Sidharth Chopra, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that if such a direction is issued, the petitioners will be satisfied, and will not take the objection that because the respondent/bank is now considering the representation/ objection under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act, the notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under Section 13(2) of the SaRFaESI act would fall by the wayside.
4. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of, based on the statement made by Mr Sachar on behalf of the respondent/bank that they will deal with the communication dated 24.05.2021, as if it was a representation/objection preferred under Section 13(3a) of the SaRFaESI act.
4.1. In case the result of such consideration is not favourable to the cause of the petitioners, the petitioners will have liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit as per law.
5. Needless to add, till the respondent/bank conveys its decision vis-a-vis the communication dated 24.05.2021, no precipitate steps will be taken by the respondent-bank against the petitioners.
6. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.
