SONALI DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated August 10, 2011 is questioning a possession notice dated August 6, 2011 (at p. 21) issued by the authorised officer of Canara Bank under s.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner argues as follows. Since the petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and the property with respect to which the notice has been issued is not a secured asset, the authorised officer of the bank could not issue the impugned notice under provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Since the availability of alternative remedy is not a bar to approach the Writ Court, the petitioner is entitled to question the notice under art.226.

(3.) Relying on an unreported decision of a Single Bench of this Court dated July 15, 2011 in W.P.No.11198(W) of 2011 (Narayan Chandra Sen & Anr. v. District Magistrate, Howrah & Ors.) counsel for the bank has submitted that the petitioner s remedy, if any, was before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He has further submitted that the husband of the petitioner has already initiated proceedings before the Tribunal. In my opinion, the petitioner s remedy, if any, was before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under s.17 of the Act. The questions whether she is a borrower or a guarantor and whether the property with respect to which the possession notice has been issued is a secured asset could be examined by the Tribunal, if the petitioner filed an appeal under s.17 of the Act. There is no reason why the petitioner has chosen not to appeal against the measures taken by the authorised officer of the bank.