SHAMKEN SPINNERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions have been filed by Shamken Group of Companies challenging the notices dated 26th May, 2006 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by respondent No. 4, an Asset Reconstruction Company. All these writ petitions, raising similar questions, have been heard together and are being finally decided by this common judgment.

(2.) WE have heard Sri Naveen Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna for the writ petitioner, Sushmita Banerji assisted by Sri Ashok Srivastava on behalf of respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1,2 and 3.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 56270 of 2009 claiming that writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived. It is pleaded in the counter affidavit that remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to avail the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is stated that although initially respondent No. 4 has given its consent for the scheme of compromise filed by the petitioner before this Court, however, since results were not declared on account of application filed by ING Vysya, an affidavit was filed by respondent No. 4 withdrawing the consent to the scheme. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that respondent No. 4 has consent of three-fourth secured creditors in value of the principal amount.