ATV PROJECTS INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality, validity and propriety of the notice dated 31st May, 2006 issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner.

(2.) The Central Bank of India informed the petitioner that there was outstanding a sum of Rs. 2,63,81,46,559.65 as on 10th January, 2006 and that the petitioner was sending the evidence of security given/charged to the bank with a view to delay action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act"); and issued certain directions. It was also stated that the bank, along with the consortium banks, is intending to take further action under Section 13(4) of the Act; and advised the petitioner and guarantors to fully co-operate.

(3.) The necessary facts are that the petitioner was declared as a "Sick Company" within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction; and the Central Bank of India had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. The bank, vide their letter dated 31st May, 2006, informed the petitioner that they, along with other consortium banks, are intending to take further action; and that is why the petitioner has approached this Court, taking the ground that this Court should interfere, in view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. , because the patent action of the respondents is likely to jeopardise the process of rehabilitation, apart from depriving more than 150 workmen of their livelihood. The Bank have themselves not fulfilled their obligations, and without involving all other banks in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation Act, in fact, have no jurisdiction even to issue the impugned notice.