RAMJILAL AGRAWAL Vs. UCO BANK & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.1.2013 whereby representation of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner obtained a loan from respondent No.2-Bank. It is stated that the petitioner paid the loan on regular basis for some time but in 2008 on wards he could not deposit the loan amount because of his ailment. A notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was issued for recovery and for taking symbolic possession. The petitioner's account was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA). The notice dated 19.6.2009 (Annexure P-3) was issued and petitioner was informed that he was directed to repay the amount within 60 days under the SARFAESI Act. After completion of the said period, the Bank has taken physical possession of the property and published the notice in accordance with law. Another notice dated 3.11.2012 (Annexure P-7) was issued. In this notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner was informed to discharge his full liabilities within 60 days. It is the case of the petitioner that he preferred detailed representation (Annexure P-8) against the said notice which was decided by Annexure P-1. P-1 is called in question mainly on the ground that under Section 13(3-A), the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the reasons on the decision of the representation.

(2.) Shri Suresh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on Section 13(3-A) and Section 17(1)(Explanation) to submit his two fold submissions as under:-

(3.) It is opposed by Shri Sushil Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Bank. He relied on various judgments passed by various Courts including (Analkumar Rajkishore Mishra & Ors. Vs. Dena Bank & Anr., 2011 AIR(Guj) 187), (Smt. Kasturi Devi Jain Vs. Union of Bank of India & Ors., 2012 AIR(MP) 4), (United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 8 SCC 110) and (Deepak Panch and Another Vs. Sent Bank Home Finance Limited and others, 2011 AIR(Chh) 32).