RAJAN E. K. Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges a sale notice issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Petitioner is conducting a business establishment by name M/s Scientific Alfa. He had availed a cash credit facility of Rs.3,00,00,000.00 in the year 2015 from the respondent and a security intrest was created over his property of 6.57 Ares and a residential building. Due to default in repayment, the loan account was declared as NPA and a notice under sec. 13(2) of the Act was issued on 23/1/2018. Subsequently, possession of the property was taken over under sec. 13(4) of the Act on 1/9/2018. According to the petitioner, without considering the genuine attempts of the petitioner to clear the loan, the respondent proceeded to initiate steps under the Act and published a notice of sale dtd. 19/11/2021 in the Mathrubhumi daily proposing to auction the property on 8/12/2021. Petitioner further contended that the sale notice was not issued to the petitioner till the date of filing of this writ petition and instead, petitioner requested the respondent for permission to sell the property to a third party under a private treaty as per his letter dtd. 27/11/2021, which was acknowledged by the respondent on 29/11/2021. Since the bank did not respond to the request of the petitioner, and in the meantime, they were attempting to proceed with the sale of the property, this writ petition was preferred.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that a credit facility was granted to the petitioner in the year 2015 to the extent of Rs.3.00 Crores and two properties were mortgaged with the bank consisting of 6.67 Ares of land in Kolazhi Village along with two buildings and another 2.92 Ares in Thrissur Village consisting of one building. It was further pleaded by the respondent that the demand notice, and other notices issued to the petitioner, were in compliance with the law and that there was never any attempt on the part of the petitioner to settle the dues. Respondent further contended that petitioner has been attempting to take advantage of the pandemic, disregarding the fact that the loan account of the petitioner was declared as an NPA as early as on 1/12/2017. It was also pointed out that the respondent had filed O.A. No.8 of 2021 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam and that neither the writ petitioner nor the guarantors had appeared even after service of notice. Respondent further pleaded that till date petitioner had never raised any objection against the measures taken by the bank and as on 30/11/2020 an amount of Rs.5,55,14,934.00 was liable to be recovered from the petitioner, as claimed in the original application and that it was in such circumstances that the proceedings under sec. 14 of the Act were initiated. Respondent also averred that when the Advocate Commissioner issued notice for taking possession of the property, the son of the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.20187 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court on 26/10/2021. Respondent also pleaded that the allegation of the petitioner that he had not received the sale notice was incorrect, since service was completed on 23/11/2021 and this being the second attempt to sell the property, all procedures were carried out in accordance with law.