JASMIN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A riveting question has emerged in this writ petition. Whether the Secured Creditor is entitled to continue with the measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 once a civil suit filed by it for recovery is dismissed by the court?

(2.) The facts in the writ petition disclose that petitioner availed a car loan for an amount of Rs.9,00,000.00. The petitioner executed necessary documents towards security. As per Ext.P6, the terms and conditions of sanction of the loan was accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, by Ext.P7 an agreement of hypothecation was also executed on 14/7/2010. The petitioner claims that she has paid the entire amount due under the loan account. But, Ext.P9 notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("Securitisation Act", for short) was issued for an amount of Rs.1,73,138.00. The petitioner raised her objection and while so, the respondent-Bank again issued a fresh notice on 11/1/2008 under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. The petitioner's objection that she is not liable to pay any amount under the loan agreement was not accepted by the respondent-Bank.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent-Bank, a statement has been filed in the writ petition wherein it is stated that Ext.P14 reply was considered and Ext.P15 was issued by the Bank rejecting the contentions. It is also contended that as against the measures under the Securitisation Act, the petitioner has got a remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Sec. 17 of the Securitisation Act.