KUSUMRANI P AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.7.2008 issued by Central Bank of India under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the "Securitisation Act".

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of flat no.302, Meridian Apartment, 3, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 058, which according to the respondent no.2, is mortgaged to Central Bank of India as security for a loan of Rs.135.75 lakhs due as on 17.4.2006. According to the petitioner, she has at no stage mortgaged the property towards the loan and she ought to have been offered an opportunity by the respondent no.2 to demonstrate this fact before issuing the notice under section 13(2) in compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how the provisions of the Securitisation Act are violative of the constitution, in any way. It may be noticed that the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act has been repelled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals (supra), except as regards section 17, sub-section (2), which requires pre-deposit.