SUNANDA KUAMRI Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners took a loan from the respondent bank. When they defaulted to pay the instalments, the respondent bank filed a suit as O.S.No.6139/2000 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for recovery of the amounts due to the bank. While the suit is pending trial, respondent bank issued to the petitioners a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) Annexure-'B' is the copy of the said notice. In response to Annexure-'B' notice, petitioners ; sent Annexure-'C' reply dated 29-7-2003. In Annexure-'C' reply the petitioners did not dispute their liability. The only defence was that the bank had already filed a suit for recovery of the amount and therefore the provisions of Section 13 of the Act could not be enforced against the petitioners. However, the bank filed Annexure-'D' application dated 27-1 -2005 under Section 14 of the Act in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The application was registered as Crl. Misc. No. 69/2005 on 28-1-2005. On 31-1-2005 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed Annexure-'E'order directing the police to assist the applicant (respondent-Bank) to secure possession of the petition shedule property from the respondents (petitioners). Challenging Annexure-'E' order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(2.) When the writ petition came up for consideration before a learned single Judge on l6-3-2005, the learned single Judge passed the following order:

(3.) When the writ petition came up for further hearing before the learned single Judge on 18-11-2005 the learned single Judge directed to place the matter before the Division Bench to consider and decide whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was required to issue notice to the petitioners before passing an order under Section 14 of the Act.