JAGDISH AND COMPANY Vs. IDBI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khandnyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has challenged the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W it Petition No.1371/2015 rejecting the petition of the petitione r howeve r liberty was granted to file alternative remed y but the interim order was vacated.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged the fact that the mandatory provisions of law and procedure is available under Section 13(3A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SAR FAESI ACT) and Rule 8 of the Security Enforcement Rules have not been followed. Counsel further vehemently urged the fact that if the procedure is established to be followed, then according to the statute the manner prescribed must be adhered to very strictly.

(3.) He has placed reliance in the matter of Calcutta High Court passed in Writ Petition No.13388/2014 in the case of Ali Hussain Vs. Paschim Banga Gramin Bank to state that if Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act and Rule 8(1)&(2) provides to do a thing in a particular manne r it has to be done in the same manner or not at all and in the present case Rule 8(1)&(2) of the Security Rule and Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act have not been followed. A notice as per requirement has not been sent to the petitioners, whereas the respondent -Bank has strictly taken coercive action against the petitioners by attaching his property concerned and trying to gain possession through the police..