SOMMANEK MUKESHBHAI CHAGANLAL Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that the public notice dated 14.08.2015, issued in the daily newspaper "Fulchhab" by the respondent Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited ("the Bank") under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the SARFAESI Act"), in the name of the petitioner's mother, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in the said notice dated 14.08.2015, the name of the petitioner's mother is mentioned in connection with various credit facilities granted to M/s.Prime Floor Tiles Private Limited (the principal debtor) and the outstanding amount is shown as Rs.16,48,87,517=57 ps., for which the petitioner's mother is stated to have stood as guarantor. According to the petitioner, the respondentBank does not have any document, executed by his mother in favour of the Bank in connection with the various credit limits granted to M/s.Prime Floor Tiles Private Limited. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondentBank is, therefore, without jurisdiction and dehors the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated in the petition that by way of a representation dated 08.09.2015, the advocate for the petitioner requested the respondentBank to provide copies of the documents executed by the petitioner's mother for the loan account of M/s.Prime Floor Tiles Private Limited in favour of the respondentBank, so that the petitioner could make a representation under subsection (3A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner did not receive any reply to the said representation. The petitioner filed objections under subsection (3A) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act on 15.09.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner received a reply from the respondentBank dated 14.09.2015, vide which a Memorandum of Joint Equitable Mortgage in connection with M/s.Prime Ceramics Private Limited was annexed by the Bank. The respondentBank has also stated that the petitioner's mother has stood as guarantor and mortgaged the property in question against various credit limits extended by the respondentBank to M/s.Prime Ceramics Private Limited and M/s.Prime Floor Tiles Private Limited, for which the mother of the petitioner had mortgaged the same property. The petitioner once again filed objections under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act on 21.09.2015. The objections were rejected by the respondentBank on 26.09.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

(3.) Mr.A.R.Thacker, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is without jurisdiction, hence, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others, 1998 8 SCC 1, this Court may not relegate the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy but may adjudicate the matter in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.