SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Jhk) 1197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
M/s. Bharat Minerals Grinding Industries - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.1779 of 2011
Decided On : 08.08.2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. S. P. Gupta & Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates
For the Bank :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Compliance with the provision of Section 13(3A) is mandatory, and the secured creditor must consider the borrower's representation/objection and communicate the reasons for non-acceptance within one week.

Headnote:

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Enforcement of security interest - Section 13(2), Section 13(3A), Section 13(4)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought direction on the Respondent-Bank to dispose of the representation/objection filed in response to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner protested against the calculation of dues and filed an objection under Section 13(3A) of the Act. The Respondent-Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) and the petitioner apprehended that the bank may proceed under Section 13(4) without considering the objection.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no compliance with the provision of Section 13(3A) and further proceeding was vitiated. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation/objection before proceeding to take any measure for recovery of the debt under Section 13(4) of the Act.

Issues: Non-compliance with the provision of Section 13(3A) and the validity of the proceeding under Section 13(4) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision of Section 13(3A) is mandatory and must be complied with. The secured creditor must consider the representation/objection filed by the borrower and communicate the reasons for non-acceptance within one week of receipt of the representation/objection.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation/objection before proceeding to take any measure for recovery of the debt under Section 13(4) of the Act.

ORDER

The petitioner has sought direction on the Respondent-Bank to dispose of the representation/ objection dated 4th February, 2011 filed on behalf of the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'). The petitioner has further sought direction on the Respondent-Bank not to take any step under Section 13(4) of the Act before giving any reply to the notice sent to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act.

2. According to the petitioner, it had applied for loan from State Bank of India, Madhupur Branch. After completion of all the required formalities, Cash Credit Loan of Rs.3.50 lacs was given to the petitioner. Against the said Cash Credit Loan, a piece of land owned by the wife of the petitioner's proprietor was mortgaged to the Bank as security. The bank account was opened, being Account No.11159162595. The said bank account was declared as N.P.A. without giving notice to the petitioner and outstanding dues with interest was calculated at Rs.3,74,173.03. The petitioner protested against the said calculation, contending that there was gross mistake in calculation of the dues. Without paying any heed to the said objection of the petitioner and without correcting the said calculation, the Respondent-Bank all of a sudden issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to discharge full liability calculated at Rs.4,33,502/as on 17th December, 2010.

3. The petitioner filed its objection/representation dated 4th February, 2011 under the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the Act, stating, inter alia, that there was mistake in calculation and the amount should be properly calculated, but till date the Respondent-Bank has not sent any reply. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has apprehension that the Respondent Bank may proceed under the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act and may take possession of the mortgaged property without considering and disposing of the objection/representation of the petitioner filed under Section 13(3A) of the Act.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondent Bank, stating, inter alia, that almost same issue has been raised before the Permnent Lok Adalat at Deoghar and the case is still pending. Before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner had taken same plea, which was replied by the Respondent Bank. Separate reply to the objection of the petitioner under Section 13(3A) of the Act is not required in view of the reply filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 21st February, 2011. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the counter affidavit as also in course of hearing, it is not disputed by the RespondentBank that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been issued, asking the petitioner to discharge full liability failing which the creditorbank shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights detailed under subsection (4) of Section 13.

7. Section 13 of the Act gives provisions for enforcement of security interest, which reads as follows:-

13. Enforcement of security interest.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as nonperforming asset, 3then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top