BASANT KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellant's grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. The appellant had obtained financial assistance from the respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs. 23.25 lacs for establishment of grossery business. In order to secure the loan, the appellant had mortgaged his property consisting land as well as residential house situate at village Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad. It is the case of the appellant that he sustained losses in the business and thereafter, he shifted to Raipur. A notice dated 21.3.2007 was published in the newspaper in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant thereupon approached this Court by filing a writ petition inter-alia on the ground that neither any notice as envisaged under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant nor there was compliance with provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the Act. The writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon, 2010 8 SCC 110. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that neither any notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the appellant nor there was compliance with provisions of Section 13 (3-A) of the Act, therefore, the action initiated by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act was abinitio void. It was further submitted that alternative remedy is not a bar in entertaining the writ petition. It was also submitted that writ petition was entertained by the learned Single Judge initially and various interim orders were passed and, therefore, the writ petition should not have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It was urged that the appellant can raise the ground with regard to the validity of the measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act only in the appeal under Section 17 of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the cases of Transcore Vs. Union of India and another, 2008 1 SCC 125, Bhupinder Singh Vs. State Bank of Patiala & Others, 2008 AIR(P&H) 148, M/ s. Raja Associates & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2008 AIR(Kar) 136 and M/s. Jayant Agencies Vs. Canara Bank & Ors., 2011 AIR(Jhar) 68.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 20.3.2006 was sent at the address of the appellant, however, the same could not be served. Eventually, the notice was affixed in the premises of the appellant and the panchnama was prepared. It was further submitted that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was also sent to the guarantors which was duly served upon them. The action under Section 13(4) of the Act has been taken by the respondent-Bank in accordance with law which does not call for any interference, as the appellant has an efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act where he can agitate all his grievances.