K S SUNIL GUPTA Vs. DENA BANK BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these petitions while assailing the sale notices dated 16.04.2010, 29.10.2009 and 03.12.2009 respectively, have also assailed Clause 4.2.7 of the Master Circular Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning Pertaining to Advances dated 01.07.2009.

(2.) The fact that the petitioners had borrowed the amounts from the respondent No.1 and 2 Bank, is not in dispute. The fact that the amounts remained outstanding cannot also be disputed. It is in that view the respondents had initiated action as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act').

(3.) While initiating the said action the respondent No.1 and 2 had classified the account of the petitioners as NPA keeping in view of the provisions of the Act and Master Circular issued by the respondent No.3 Reserve Bank of India. It is in that view when the sale notices were issued, petitioners have assailed the sale notice by contending that the provisions made in the Master Circular is also not justified in law.