ABOOBACKER Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P4 and P7. Ext.P4 is a notice issued to the petitioner by the respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. To Ext.P4 the petitioner filed Ext.P5 dated 16.11.2004. Ext.P6 is a notice issued by the Bank referring to the representation given by the petitioner whereunder it is inter alia stated that if the petitioner does not comply with the notice issued by the Bank, the Bank will proceed with further steps under the Act for taking possession. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein there is reference to the proposal made by the petitioner for one time settlement and its rejection by the Bank and the request to improve the offer. It is stated in Ext. P5 also that there is a request for one time settlement. Even though there is a proposal for Rs. 8 lakhs, no amount was deposited contends the Bank. It is stated that if the petitioner is really interested, he should deposit atleast some amount. It is stated that a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Bank can simultaneously proceed with the civil suit as also under the Act.

(2.) I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bank. Learned counsel contended that the Bank has obtained a decree and has filed Execution Petition. It is stated that there is no power to proceed against the petitioner. Then it is further submitted that the power given to the Bank is not analogous to the power given to the State Financial Corporation and the Bank is bound to act under Section 14. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that this Court has already held that the pendency of the matter in the Civil Court will not debar the Bank from proceeding under the Act. He relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Abdul Azeez v. Punjab National Bank, 2005 (1) KLT 243 = 2005 (1) KLJ 31. As far as Section 14 is concerned, a perusal of the same will make it clear that in my view the said provision is meant to assist the Bank in getting possession of the property. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Bank that it is not obligatory for the Bank in all cases to get possession only by resorting to Section 14 of the Act. It may happen in a given case that there is resistance to the taking of possession. Then it is no doubt open to the Bank to seek assistance as provided in Section 14 of the Act. It cannot be accepted as an inexorable rule that in all cases the Bank shall be compelled to take recourse to Section 14 of the Act. No doubt it enables the Bank to seek assistance as provided in Section 14 of the Act if the facts of the given case so warrant. Apparently Section 14 is enacted to ensure that the financial institution does not forcibly dispossess the person in question. I find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner.