The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory remedy of appeal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 must be pursued before invoking the writ jurisdiction.

Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the threatened action of the respondent bank to take action under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without serving notice upon the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office situated at Guwahati. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of tea and for the purpose it owns a tea garden, which stands in the name and style of "Noorbari Tea Estate" situated at Tezpur, Assam.

2. The petitioner No. 1 company represented by the petitioner No. 2, one of the Directors, took a loan from the respondent No. 1 i.e. UCO Bank in the year 2001. The petitioners have admitted that there was lapse on their part towards repayment of the loan amount. In the writ petition, the petitioners have not furnished the details of the loan taken and the outstanding liability. It is the case of the petitioners that on 25-2-2006, a person namely Sri S.K. Roy, Manager of the respondent No. 4 company informed the petitioners that the company has been authorized by the respondent bank to take action against the petitioner company as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. According to the petitioners, they were not aware of any such move of the Bank as they did not receive any communication.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on receipt of the intimation from the representative of the respondent No. 4, they contacted the respondent bank and upon such contact could come to know that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was in fact issued to the petitioners. They were also informed that since the notice was not responded to, the respondent Bank proposed to take action against the petitioner company as per the provisions of the Act. Situated thus, the petitioners made Annexure-B communication dated 13-3-2006 to the respondent bank making a request to provide with the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act enabling it to submit reply to the same. The petitioners have asserted that although no reply has been furnished to them, but on the other hand the respondent bank has threatened to take action as per the provisions of the Act.

4. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311 : (AIR 2004 SC 2371) the petitioners have contended that they are entitled to reply to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to which the authority must apply its mind. According to the petitioners, this right having been denied to them, the Bank is precluded from taking action under Section 13(4) of the Act.

5. The respondent Bank has filed its affidavit denying the contention raised by the petitioners. In the affidavit, the Bank apart from dealing with the merit of the case has also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the remedy available to the petitioners under the inbuilt provisions of the Act. Referring to the Annexure-A letters dated 13-5-2005, 20-6-2005 and 21-7-2005, in which the respondent Bank had given the details of the charge against the petitioners, it has been contended in the affidavit that the petitioners have suppressed material fact and have also neglected to regularize their accounts and/or honor its obligation towards the respondent Bank.

6. In paragraph 3(g) of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that under the circumstances, the respondent Bank was compelled to issue notice dated 30-9-2005 under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding the amount of Rs. 3,74,52,775/- being the outstanding liability as on 30-9-2005. The details of the liability were indicated in Schedule A to the notice. In Schedule B to the notice the details of the security documents were also indicated, while the details of the secured assets were mentioned in Schedule C. Copies