BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served, however, he is not represented. By consent of the parties as appearing, heard finally.

(2.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had extended financial facilities to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had executed a Memorandum of record of an equitable mortgage of the secured assets. Further, the entire sanctioned credit facilities were collaterally secured. Respondent No.2 however defaulted in making payment of the amounts as lent by the petitioner. On 19/8/2015 in the petitioner's books, the account of respondent No.2 was declared as Non-Performing Asset ( NPA ). The petitioner in these circumstances intended to proceed to exercise its powers under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') to recover the amounts. Accordingly, a notice was issued to respondent No.2 under the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. As despite issuance of such notice, respondent No.2 did not come forward to pay the amounts as defaulted and respondent No.2 continued to be a defaulter. The petitioner, thus initiated action by invoking Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, so as to obtain appropriate orders from the District Magistrate, Raigad. However, before any order could be passed on such proceedings, the impugned letter dtd. 2/11/2015 came to be addressed to the petitioner, on behalf of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence / respondent No.1 The contents of the said letter read thus:-