MUNSHI RAM GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition, Appellant sought to challenge the validity of the notice dated 3rd December, 2010 issued by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was contended that recourse to the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the said Act could only be taken by the Respondent Bank, provided the cash credit account of the Appellant had become a non-performing asset. The Appellant sought to demonstrate in the writ petition that the cash credit account of the Appellant did not become a non-performing asset at or before the said notice was issued. The writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal holding that the Appellant has an efficacious remedy of filing objection before the authority concerned. The learned Judge, while doing so, took notice of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India, 2004 4 JT 308

(2.) In the appeal, Appellant is contending that in terms of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant, though, is entitled to make a representation, but the out come of the said representation cannot be challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and, accordingly, whether the account of the Appellant had, in fact, become a non-performing asset or not is a question for which the Appellant has no other forum available except this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The right to take recourse to a judicial proceeding arises no sooner cause of action therefor arises. In the instant case, the Respondent Bank contended that the account of the Appellant has become a non-performing asset. The Appellant denied the same. By reason of such denial, no cause of action for the Appellant arose entailing it to initiate a judicial proceeding. In other words, assertion by the Respondent Bank that the account of the Appellant has become a non-performing asset and denial thereof by the Appellant, did not raise any cause of action for the Appellant to take recourse of any judicial proceedings.