ELECTRO-ELECTRO Vs. NAINITAL BANK LIMITED & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned notice dated 12.06.2015 under Section 13 (2) R/W Section 13 (13) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act No.54 of 2002) issued by the respondent no.3. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to proceed for recovery of money from the petitioners in pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2015 issued by the respondent no.3.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner firm is a proprietorship firm under the sole proprietorship of Sri Praveen Kumar Gautam, engaged in dealing with contract works in various Central Government and State Government Departments. The petitioner firm has a cash credit account with the respondent no.2. Cash credit limit of Rs. 15 Lakhs was given to the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm was regularly depositing the amount in the aforesaid account with the cash credit limit till the month of February, 2015, but the petitioner firm could not pay the due installments in time, as some payments of proprietor of petitioner firm were withheld by the Government Departments. Due to non-deposit of installment in time, the respondent no.3 has issued a notice on 12.06.2015 against the petitioner firm, for the recovery of Rs. 16,33,646/- with other dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now petitioner is in a position to deposit the loan amount in installment. He also submitted that petitioner will also deposit the interest and recovery charges.