BISWANATH CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court : The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 18, 2012 is seeking the following principal relief:

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits as follows. This morning he has been informed by the petitioner that certain measures have been taken by the authorised officer of the bank under sub -s.(4) of s.13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is questioning the palpably illegal s.13(2) notice, because the bank has taken steps for enforcing an absolutely unenforceable claim.

(3.) THE s.13(2) notice could not and did not give the petitioner a cause of action to move the High Court under art.226. It was a mere demand notice creating only a right to submit an objection or representation. His cause of action, if any, would have arisen only if measures were taken under s.13(4); and in that case his remedy would have been before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under s.17.