K GOPALAN Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24. 8. 2006 under which the 2nd respondent, the Authorised Officer of Indian Overseas Bank has issued a tender-cum-auction notice purported to be issued under section 13 (4) (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 along with Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. As per the said impugned order for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 97,90,137/-, the property of the petitioner is sought to be sold by a public auction on 28. 09. 2006. It is challenging the said notice, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) EVEN though the petitioner has raised as many objections regarding the validity or the otherwise of the said notice and also disputing the said borrowal by the petitioner himself, it is to be noted that the matter has already been decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal also and it is too late for the petitioner now to say as if he has not borrowed the amount. In any event, this notice is issued under section 13 (4) (1) of the SARFAESI Act against which the appeal lies under section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the procedure contemplated under the said provisions is that for the notice issued under section 13 (4) (1) of the SARFAESI Act, the objections can be given by the borrower and after the objection is not taken into consideration, it is always open to the petitioner to move the Tribunal under section 17 of the Act by way of an appeal.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as if for the purpose of moving an appeal under section 17 of the Act, he has to deposit the amount, cannot be the reason for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.