POORAN LAL ARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents under the provisions of Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002 ). They challenge Annexure 3 order passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate, Nainital, for the recovery of the amount due to the third respondent Bank from the petitioners.

(2.) SECTION 17 (1) of Act 54 of 2002 reads thus :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the defect in Annexure 4 notice dated 18-04-2004, the entire proceedings were vitiated and therefore the respondents were not entitled to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of the said notice. The defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even though Section 13 (2)of the above-mentioned Act requires that the borrower should be given 60 days' time to discharge, in full, his liabilities to the secured creditor, in annexure 4 notice only a period of a fortnight was given to the borrower. Learned counsel invited our attention to the following sentence in Annexure 4 Notice :