A.KISHORE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the Writ Petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12196/2020 dated 24.6.2020 refusing to interfere with Exts.P1 and P3 communications issued by the State Bank of India, Kottarakkara Main Branch, Kollam District, the 1st respondent herein dated 13.3.2020 and 2.6.2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to secure a 'No objection Certificate' from the Canara Bank, Kottarakkara, Kollam District, in order to continue the current account maintained with the State Bank of India. It is thus challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment, this appeal is filed.

(2.) The brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant is an 'A Class Contractor' executing public works for the Government for the past 25 years. According to the appellant, he opened a current account with the State Bank of India during July, 2013, which is specifically operated for purchasing tender forms and furnishing deposits for the works quoted by appellant and executing agreements. Case of the appellant is that, during November 2013, the Canara Bank, ie. 4 th respondent had taken over the liabilities of the appellant with the Federal Bank Limited, Kottarakara Branch and has extended various financial assistance to carry out the work of the appellant by opening a current account on 28.11.2013. It is also submitted that the appellant mortgaged properties worth Rs.50 Crores and executed Power of Attorney in favour of the lending bank for the financial assistance availed and up to 31.12.2019, the lending bank has realised Rs.10,32,66,842/- by way of interest alone from the appellant. While so, on 20.12.2019, the Canara Bank, ie. the lending bank declared the account of the appellant as Non-performing Asset (NPA) and issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act , 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2002' for short). Appellant has submitted objection and representation to the said notice to the secured creditor, however, without considering and appreciating the objections and the grievances highlighted in the representation, issued a reply stating that the steps taken by the secured creditor is as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Anyhow, it is admitted that the possession of the secured asset was taken over by issuing notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002. Thereupon, the appellant has filed SA No. 188/2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002, which is pending consideration.

(3.) At that juncture, at the instance of the Canara Bank, the Chief Manager of the SBI, ie. the 3rd respondent, issued Ext.P1 notice to the appellant and directed to produce a 'No Objection Certificate' for continuing operations of the current account of the appellant with the SBI, failing which it is threatened that the account maintained with the SBI would be closed. Appellant has submitted a reply to Ext.P1 basically conceding that the appellant opened the current account with the SBI in July 2013, whereas the current account with the Canara Bank was opened only in November, 2013 and the master circular relied upon by the 4th respondent issued by the Reserve Bank of India is applicable only at the time of opening of current account alone, and it will never interdict the operation of a current account opened, and operating from July, 2013 onwards. Anyhow, being dissatisfied with the reply, the SBI has issued Ext.P3 notice to the appellant dated 2.6.2020, which is relevant to the context and which read thus: