SHREEMANTHULA KUMARASWAMY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of default committed by the petitioner borrower in repayment of the outstanding dues, account of the petitioner borrower was classified as a "Non-performing Asset" (NPA) by the respondent Punjab National Bank. As the petitioner borrower failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the Bank, the Bank issued a notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth 'the Act of 2002').

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act of 2002 has not been served upon the petitioner and without there being any service of notice, the entire proceedings have been initiated. The petitioner was not at all aware about the fact that his account in respect of such debt is classified as non-performing asset, as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Durg, Chhattisgarh is not in accordance with law. The procedure as envisaged under Sec. 13(2) as well as Sec. 14 of the Act of 2002 has not been complied with and without following any procedure the impugned order has been passed. In two earlier occasions, the District Magistrate, Durg has dismissed the application filed under Sec. 14 of the Act of 2002 for want of prosecution on 10/6/2024 and thereafter no procedure was followed. Even the documents were not supplied to the petitioner. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Govind Kumar Sharma and others v. Bank of Baroda and others, . As such, the impugned order dtd. 23/12/2024 is liable to be set aside.