C REGRAJ Vs. BANK OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the possession notice issued by the respondent Bank against the petitioner dated 30. 8. 2006 by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcements and Security Enforcement Act, 2002.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, this Court in W. P. M. P. No. 13904/2006 dated 10. 5. 2006 has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs. However, it appears that the petitioner has deposited only Rs. 20 lakhs and he has filed an application for the purpose of extension of time for payment of the balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. By subsequent order dated 31. 5. 2006, this Court has permitted the petitioner to pay the said balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs within four weeks time.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that before the expiry of four weeks time given by this Court, an order under section 13 (4) of the said Act came to be passed, taking possession. On a perusal of the order passed by this Court, it shows that inspite of the order passed on 10. 5. 2006 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs, the petitioner has deposited only Rs. 20 lakhs and subsequently, an order dated 31. 5. 2006 came to be passed, in which the petitioner was directed to pay the remaining amount within four weeks time and the said four weeks time expired during the end of June, 2006. It was only after the expiry of four weeks, again on 17. 7. 2006, the respondent has given notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act, directing the petitioner to pay the amount. Inspite of that, the petitioner has not paid the amount. In view of the same, provision under section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act was invoked by the respondent Bank for the purpose of taking possession. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even before four weeks time granted by this Court, the respondent has invoked the jurisdiction under section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act. Hence, the possession notice taken under section 13 (4) of the Securitisation Act is perfectly in order.