The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of statutory remedy of appeal in case of initiation of proceeding under Section 13(4) of the Act, and the court's reluctance to interfere with the bank's actions in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is a retired State Government employee and he owns a plot of land at Guwahati wherein he has constructed a two-storied building. He stood guarantor for repayment of the loan obtained by the respondent No. 4 from the State Bank of India, by mortgaging the said immovable property. The financial assistance by way of loan rendered to the respondent No. 4 by the Bank was for Rs. 13,50,000/-. Apart from the loan agreement by and between the respondent No. 4 and the Bank, the petitioner also entered into a separate agreement undertaking to stand as guarantor in respect of the loan.

2. The respondent No. 4 after obtaining the loan from the Bank started his business in electric goods in the name and style of M/s. Real Deal Corporation. The respondent No. 5 is the wife of the respondent No. 4 and she has been working in the Bank. According to the petitioner, she taking advantage of her employment in the Bank managed to persuade the authorities of the bank to take over the loan account from the earlier bank i.e. State Bank of India by enhancing the credit limit from Rs. 13,50,000/- to Rs. 22,00,000/-. A fresh agreement was entered into by and between the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 2 Bank. The petitioner also entered into a fresh agreement dated 31-10-2001 with the respondent No. 2 Bank undertaking to stand as guarantor in respect of the loan account. The respondent No. 5 also stood as guarantor. He is an employee of the respondent No. 2 Bank.

3. By Annexure-1 letter dated 24-1-2003 the respondent Bank directed the respondent No. 4 to regularize the loan account immediately and submit the audited balance-sheet and copy of renewed insurance policy. A copy of the letter was also endorsed to the petitioner for information. According to the petitioner, he had come to know about the aforesaid state of affairs of the loan for the first time on receipt of the copy of the said letter dated 24-1-2003. He wrote a letter dated 21-1-2003 to the respondent No. 4 raising his objection and requested the respondent No. 4 to release his immovable properties mortgaged with the Bank. However, such request of the petitioner did not yield any result. Situated thus, he addressed the Annexure-3 letter dated 5-5-2003 to the respondent Bank with the request to release his mortgaged properties from the charge by creating charge over the residential flat purchased by the respondents No. 4 and 5.

4. By Annexure-4 letter, the respondent Bank directed the respondent No. 4 to take corrective steps in regularizing the cash credit account as per his earlier commitment made to the bank. As per the said letter the debit balance of the cash credit account as on 30-4-2003 stood at Rs. 23,42,147/- inclusive of interest. A copy of this letter was also endorsed to the petitioner. Situated thus, the petitioner renewed his earlier request to the Bank by letters dated 10-6-2003 and 7-7-2003 (Annexure-5 and 6). According to the petitioner these letters have been followed by various other letters with the same request, but to no result.

5. The petitioner has been issued with the impugned notice dated 19-1-2005 under Section 13(2) of the Act making a demand for payment of the amount of Rs. 20,97,566/- from the petitioner. In the notice it has also been indicated that upon failure of the petitioner to do so, action would be taken as per Section 13(3) of the Act. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner by his Annexure-8 letter dated 11-4-2005 requested the respondent Bank to recover the loan from the respondents No. 4 and 5. Thereafter the petitioner received the Annexure-10 letter from M/s. Kanak Choudhury and Associated (not party to this proceeding), the enforcement agent of the respondent Bank asking the petitioner to hand over possession of the pl