KANWAL JEET SINGH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri S.C. Gulati. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been served with a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 2.8.04, to which he has filed objections on 25.9.04. The petitioner has raised various pleas in the objections, including the plea that the said amount cannot be recovered under the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections have not yet been considered and no reasons have yet been communicated to the petitioner, as required by the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2004(4) SCC 311.

(2.) The apprehension of the petitioner is that even without communicating the reasons as per the aforesaid pronouncement and even without passing an order under Section 13(4) of the Act, further action of taking possession of the assets mentioned in the notice, which according to the Bank are the secured assets, would be taken.

(3.) Sri S.C. Gulati, appearing for the Bank says that it is a mere imagination of the petitioner that even without following the code of law and without following the law declared by the Supreme Court, further action would be taken.