HIND SPECTRON MAMUFACTORES PVT LTD Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to a sale notice issued by the respondent bank dated 3.11.06, in pursuance of an action taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act).

(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to receipt of a notice under section 13(2) of the Act dated 28.11.05, the petitioners had given certain proposals for restructuring of the accounts and/or revision of the credit facilities by letters dated 1.1.05 and 24.1.05 but on both occasions, the proposals were turned down by the respondent Bank by its letters dated 3.12.05 and 30.1.06 without furnishing any reason and by recording that the proposals were not acceptable to it. He submits that by these two letters, the Bank conveyed only the "conclusion" and not the reasons leading to such "conclusion". He further submits that in terms of section 13(3A) of the Act, the respondent Bank is under a statutory obligation to disclose reasons while disposing of the objection raised by the borrowers after receipt of notice under section 13(2) and since there has been a failure on the part of the respondent Bank to discharge its statutory obligations, this Court ought to hold all further actions taken by the respondent Bank to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) He has also submitted before this Court that the petitioners have since filed an application under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 before this Hon'ble Court being C.P. No. 627/06 and that the said application is pending. In this connection, he has placed before this Court an order dated 12.12.06 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the said application whereby 19.2.07 has been fixed as the date for a meeting of the unsecured creditors, and he submits on the basis thereof that this Court ought to restrain the respondent Bank from taking any further adverse action against the petitioners till such time a decision is arrived at in the said meeting. He submits that after all efforts are being made to revive the company and if the properties of the company which have been put up for sale by the respondent Bank are disposed of, it would stand as an impediment in the matter of reviving the company.