Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JJ.
K. Muthuram - Appellant
Vs.
The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 32477 of 2023
Decided On : 04-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :D. Murugan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:J. Arun Prasad, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Interpretation of the provisions of the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises and the applicability of the Scheme to the petitioner's loan.
Headnote:
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme - Interpretation of Scheme provisions
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to take the petitioner's objection on the file in a proceeding filed by the respondent under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. The petitioner's argument was based on the Master Circular on Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were rival contentions regarding the coverage of the petitioner's loan under the Scheme and the payment of credit guarantee fees. The court noted that no order had been passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 as of the date of the judgment.
Issues: Interpretation of the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme provisions, coverage of the petitioner's loan, payment of credit guarantee fees, and the absence of an order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if an order under Section 14 is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where all contentions can be raised.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the related Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
ORDER :
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu to take the petitioner's objection on the file in Crl.M.P.No.6634 of 2023 and dispose the matter on merits.)
1. We have heard Mr.D.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner; and, Mr.J.Arun Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner seeks directions to take the petitioner's objection on the file in Crl.M.P.No.6634 of 2023. The said proceeding is filed by the respondent under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “Act of 2002”).
3. The edifice of the petitioner's argument is based upon the Master Circular on Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises. There are rival contentions.
4. According to the petitioner, the loan of the petitioner is covered under the said Scheme, whereas, according to the respondent, the credit guarantee fees has not been paid after 2016. The guarantee cover does not exist.
5. According to the respondent, today, an amount of Rs.2.68 crore is outstanding against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, different loan accounts are being included, which are not the subject-matter of the Scheme.
6. Even if the Scheme is applied, the quantum of coverage is only 50% of the amount. The petitioner is not ready to pay the remaining 50% of the amount.
7. Nonetheless, no order is passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 as on date. If the order under Section 14 is passed against the petitioner, then the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. At that time, the petitioner can raise all his contentions.
8. The writ petition, as such, is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.32087 of 2023 is closed.
