ORAL ORDER

1 In both these petitions, the petitioner bank has challenged the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, so confirmed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. In short, the challenge to these orders is on the ground that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the Securitization Applications of the respondents on the ground that there is non compliance of provisions of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. For the purposes of deciding the question on the validity of the orders of the Tribunal viz-a-viz the question under Section 13(2), the facts of Special Civil Application No.

19918 of 2019 are considered.

2 The facts in a nutshell are that the respondent-company availed Cash Credit Facility and the Term Loan Facility from the petitioner bank. On the respondent committing default, the account of the borrower was classified as Non Performing Asset on 27.12.2014. On 29.12.2014, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the petitioner bank. Consequential actions under the SARFAESI Act resulted thereafter and a notice on 19.03.2015 to take physical possession was issued. An order under Section 14 was passed on 22.07.2019.

3 These proceedings were a subject matter of challenge at the hands of the respondent applicant before the Tribunal by filing Securitization Application No. 48 of 2015. The Tribunal by its decision dated 22.06.2017 allowed the application. The Tribunal held that there was non compliance of Section 13(2) inasmuch as, details of the amounts due were not provided. The Tribunal directed the bank to restore the possession with a liberty that the bank can proceed afresh under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

4 The bank carried the matter in appeal. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 23.08.2010 confirmed the order of the Tribunal.

5 Ms. Nalini Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank has drawn my attention to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and submitted that the details i.e. final figure due, outstanding and payable by the respondent has been stated in the notice which is sufficient compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act.

5.1 Ms.Lodha, learned counsel, would further submit that the respondent cannot be said to be unaware of the interest rate inasmuch as, even before the notice under Section 13(2) was issued, a letter dated 25.10.2013 was addressed to the bank which indicates that a request was made to the bank to provide specific and acute details and interest calculations. According to Ms.Lodha, the bank would not have considered this and furnished the details as per the I.C.R.A request made by the respondent. Taking me through the letters addressed by the advocate at page 56 and the objections filed by the respondent at page 68 where the request was made to reduce the interest rate at 10% and in context of the agreement for loan (page 30) and for the cash credit facility at page 45, she invited my attention to the relevant clause of the agreement to submit that the rates of interest has been specified and agreed to, and therefore, the respondent could not have asked for specific details when they were aware of the rate of interest to which they had agreed. The recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, therefore, committed gross error of law in holding that the notice under Section 13(2) was defective.

5.2 In her submission, when a representation was made under Section 13(3A) r/w. Rule 3(A) of the Securitization Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, there was no need for modifying the notice once it was an admitted fact by way of Loan Agreement and Cash Credit Facility that the amount was agreed to and that the orders of the Tribunal and of the Appellate Tribunal were bad.

6 Mr.R.S.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel has appeared with Mr.Sandip Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent. Mr.Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel, has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act and submitted that where a borrower makes a d