APEX ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions challenge is made by the concerned petitioners to the action taken by the concerned respondent Bank or Financial Institution, as the case may be, under the Act. In majority of the cases the action under challenge is at a stage of issuance of notice under Sec. 13(2) of "The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), requiring the borrower, by notice in writing, to discharge full liabilities of secured creditors. Only in few cases which shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage, there is challenge to other actions of Bank in addition to the action for challenging the notice. The challenge is also to the action of the Bank of taking steps under Sec. 13(4) of the Act of either sealing secured assets and/or for taking possession of the secured assets. It is also an admitted position that as per the information supplied to the Court that none of the petitioners has approached Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "D.R.T.") against the action of the Bank under Sec. 13(4) of the Act by preferring appeal under Sec. 17 of the Act and all these petitions are preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties namely, Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, Mr. N. K. Majmudar, Mr. Bhagat, Mr. M. S. Shah, Mr. S. S. Shah, Mr. P. S. Champaneri, Mr. Marshal, Mr. J. T. Trivedi, Mr. A. M. Parekh, Mr. C. L. Soni, Mr. Kapadia, Mr. A. M. Raval, and Mr. Jayesh Dave, and other learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners who are mainly representing borrowers or loanees or the guarantors. I have also heard learned Counsel, Mr. M. J. Thakore, with Mr. Sangi, Mr. S. N. Soparkar, with Mr. Amar Bhatt, Mr. K. S. Nanavati with Mr. Chudgar, Mr. Panesar, Mr. P. V. Nanavati, and Mr. G. S. Thakkar, and other learned Advocates appearing for Financial Institution, Nationalized Banks, Other Banks and the Co-operative Banks, as the case may be.

(3.) The other learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have adopted the submissions made by the aforesaid learned Advocates Mr. M. H. Joshi and others appearing either for the borrowers or the guarantors, as the case may be, and the learned Counsel appearing for the Banks, may be Nationalized Banks or Co-operative Banks or other Banks, as the case may be, have adopted the submissions made by aforesaid learned Advocates appearing for Banks namely Mr. M. J. Thakore and others.