The communication of reasons to the borrower under Section 13(3-A) of the Act of 2002 is only for the purpose of information/knowledge of the borrower without conferring any right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal at that stage.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. This intra Court appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 10-8-2010 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2099/2010.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the Appellant Company was extended the loan/credit facilities by the Respondent Bank. Due to defaults in the repayment, considering the difficulties stated by the Appellant, the Respondent Bank accepted the Appellant's prayer for re-schedulement of the financial assistance extended by it. However, even after re-schedulement the Appellant failed to adhere to the conditions of re-schedulement, in the circumstances the Respondent Bank in exercise of its powers under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Act of 2002') issued a notice dated 14-12-2009 requiring the Appellant to discharge in full its liabilities. It was also informed to the Appellant that failing to discharge its liabilities the Bank shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under Sub-section (4) of the Section 13 of the Act of 2002.

3. On receipt of the said notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 the Appellant submitted a representation/objection before the Respondent/ Bank. The Respondent Bank considered the said representation/objection and informed the Appellant that his representation/objection is not acceptable/ tenable vide letter dated 9-2-2010. Aggrieved by the notice dated 14-12-2009 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 and the reply dated 9-2-2010 sent by the Respondent/Bank, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 2099/2010 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the entire proceedings initiated by the Respondent/ Bank under the provisions of Act of 2002 including the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 as well as the reply dated 9-2-2010 be quashed. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10-8-2010 by observing that the Appellant can avail the alternative remedy available to it in case the Respondent Bank wishes to proceed further under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2371 = (2004) 4 SCC 311, on a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Digvision Electronics Ltd. v. Indian Bank represented by its General Manager 2005 CLC 978, a Single Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Archana Spinners Ltd. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (2007) 76 SCL 280 and on a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 14-5-2009 in the case of Punjab National Bank and Anr. v. Imperial Gift House and Ors. 2009 INSC 1074.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition the Appellant/Petitioner has filed this writ appeal.

5. Heard Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/Bank.

6. It has been argued by leaned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy to the Appellant. He submitted that in view of the Scheme of the Act of 2002 there is no remedy of appeal against the rejection of the representation or objection submitted by the borrower under Section 13(3-A) of the Act of 2002. According to him the proviso to Section 13(3-A) prohibits the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or to approach the Court of District Judge under Section 17A. He pointed out that the explanation of Section