C ANANDHAKUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the commonality of the facts and the question of law involved in the writ petitions, both petitions are being considered and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The first petition is filed by the borrower, assailing the legality of the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act") dated 14th March, 2015, calling upon the petitioner to make payment of outstanding dues in the subject matter. The second writ petition is filed by him, assailing the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act dated 16th May, 2015.

(3.) The prime contention of Dr.Anita Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued without examining all relevant facts as the debt of Renaissance does not satisfy the definition of non performing asset as defined under Section 2(o) of the SARFAESI Act and not in conformity with the regulations as prescribed in the Circular DBOD No.BP.BC/20/21.04.048/2001-2002 dated 1st September, 2001. During the pendency of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this court, by order dated 14th May, 2015, passed an interim order directing the respondent Bank not to take any coercive step till the disposal of the representation by the petitioner under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. The Bank, by communication dated 14th May, 2015 rejected the representation dated 6th May, 2015 made under the provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act.