IQBAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals, the appellant is assailing the order dated 29-8- 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.995/2008, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy.

(2.) THE appellant had availed financial facility from the first respondent-Bank by mortgaging the moveable and immovable properties in terms of the agreement dated 8-6-1996. Since the appellant committed default in payment of monthly installments, the respondent- Bank filed a suit in O.S. No.216/2000 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore seeking for recovery of the dues from the appellant. THE Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), by a judgment and decree dated 28-2-2003 decreed the suit. THEreafter, the respondent- Bank issued a demand notice dated 16-11-2007 demanding for repayment of Rs. 20,52,929/- as on 31-10-2007 under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to "ACT"). THE appellant being aggrieved by the demand notice dated 16-11-2007 filed W.P. No.20193/2007 challenging the same on various grounds. This Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on 20-12-2007 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file his reply to said notice.

(3.) SRI. A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the learned single Judge and contended that the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) and also rejoinder reply issued under Section 13(3A) of the Act has been challenged in the writ petition. No order has been passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, when the writ petition was pending consideration. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. Thereafter, the respondents have passed an order under Section 13(4) of the Act and the said order has not been challenged. Learned counsel further contended that against the order passed under Section 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner has got remedy under Section 17 of the Act. Hence, he cannot file writ petition challenging the notice. Further, he also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413 : (2010 (4) AIR Kar R 439) (United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others) and also the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) Nos.4436-4438/2009 disposed of on 7-2-2011 in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others v. State of Maharashtra and others and contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioner has got efficacious statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ appeals.