SMT.ANJANA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner has filed the present Review Petition seeking review of the order dated 18.09.2017 passed in WP No.5917/17 by which Writ Petition was dismissed for want of alternate remedy. The petitioner has filed the present Review Petition mainly on the ground that while passing the order dated 18.09.2017 the Writ Court has committed error of fact as well as error of law. The contention of the petitioner is that the Writ Petitioner submitted the objection to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Bank but in their return before this court the Bank has stated that no representation/objection was filed within the prescribed period of time. The Bank has also filed an affidavit before the ADM contending that the reply submitted by the petitioner was considered and rejected, therefore, the Writ Court while deciding the Writ Petition has overlooked this fact and wrongly dismissed the Writ Petition, hence, the order is liable to be reviewed.

(2.) According to the Bank, notice dated 01.07.2017 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was sent by the registered A.D on 01.07.17, 11.07.15 and 14.07.15 but all notices had returned back as "not claimed", thereafter the Bank has got published the notice in the "Free Press" newspaper dated 27.10.15 and "Dainik Bhaskar" newspaper dated 27.10.15. The petitioner has responded to the notice only when the notice was sent through E-mail to her, thereafter the petitioner submitted an objection on 31.12.16 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The limitation for submitting objection is only 60 days, therefore, the petitioner had submitted an objection beyond the period of 60 days from 01.07.2017 hence respondent Bank in their return has specifically pleaded that no objection was filed within the prescribed period of time.

(3.) The objection dated 31.12.2015 was duly replied by the Bank vide letter dated 04.01.2016 and E-mail dated 05.01.2016, thereafter the Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 before the District Magistrate on 22.01.2016 along with an affidavit and in the affidavit they rightly stated that the objection of the petitioner has been considered, therefore, there is no factual error in the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by this court, hence, Review Petition is liable to be dismissed.