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

2023 Supreme(UK) 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
M/S U.S.A. Solar Systems - Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand State Co-Operative Bank Limited and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2875 of 2023
Decided On : 18-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. K.R. Gazi.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Siddharth Jain.

Prematurity of the petition seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Loan Default - Section 13 (2) - [Section 13 (2) SARFAESI Act] - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, stating that the petition was premature as the borrower's objections or representations had not been considered by the secured creditor, and the likely action of the secured creditor did not confer the right upon the borrower to approach the court under Sections 17 and 17 A of the SARFAESI Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner took a loan from the bank for a solar power project. The bank declared the petitioner's account as a Non Performing Asset (NPA) and issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner sought to quash the notice, claiming that the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act could not be invoked at this stage.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petition was premature as the borrower's objections or representations had not been considered by the secured creditor, and the likely action of the secured creditor did not confer the right upon the borrower to approach the court under Sections 17 and 17 A of the SARFAESI Act.

Issues: Prematurity of the petition seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petition was premature as the borrower's objections or representations had not been considered by the secured creditor, and the likely action of the secured creditor did not confer the right upon the borrower to approach the court under Sections 17 and 17 A of the SARFAESI Act.

Final Decision: The petition seeking to quash the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as premature.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

    “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 09.08.23 (Annexure No.09) issued in purported exercise of powers under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation of Security Interest Act, 2002 passed by Authorized Officer Uttarakhand State Co-Operative Bank Limited (Apex Branch), Administrative Building, Nainital Road, Haldwani (Respondent no.1).

(ii) To issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent not to proceed with their action under section 13 (2) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the petitioner.

(iii) Pass any other or further order (s)/writ (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner in order to establish a solar power project, he took loan of Rs.2,70,00,000/- Lakh from the respondent no.1, the Uttarakhand State Cooperative Bank Limited, Nainital (“the Bank”). In the month of December, 2020, the respondent no.1 the Bank declared the account of the petitioner as Non Performing Asset (“NPA”) w.e.f. 01.04.2018. It compelled the petitioner to file a reference under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (“the Act”). An award was given on 31.03.2021, which according to the petitioner was accepted by the respondent no.1 the Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that on 09.08.2020, the petitioner received a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) from the respondent no.1 Bank, which he replied on 04.09.2020. Now petitioner seeks quashing of the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2020, the respondent no.1 the Bank had declared the account of the petitioner NPA w.e.f. 01.04.2018 against which the petitioner sought the remedy under the provision of the Act, an award was given. The award was accepted by the respondent no.1, the Bank. But now, against a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, at this stage, the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be invoked and the petitioner cannot ventilate his grievance under the SARFAESI Act. He has given a reply, on which a decision has yet not been taken.

5. Learned counsel for the Bank would submit even the petitioner has not complied with the terms of award and the petition is premature.

6. Section 13 sub Section (1) (2) (3) and (3-A) of the SARFAESI Act are 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 may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4):

Provided that-

(i) the requirement of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities; and

(ii) in

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top