PRASAD MITRA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails a possession notice dated January 24, 2019 issued by the bank exercising power under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 by the bank is without jurisdiction, in as much as, the bank did not dispose of the representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act of 2002 prior to taking the measures. He relies upon a judgment and order dated June 25, 2018 passed in W. P. No.6880 (W) of 2018 (Mita Banerjee Versus Bank of India & Ors.) as also the order dated July 20, 2016 passed in W. P. No.12509 (W) of 2016 (Mita Banerjee Versus UCO Bank & Ors.). He submits that, since, a period of sixty days did not elapse from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 by the Bank and the Bank not having disposed of the representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act of 2002, the Bank is not entitled to take any further measures under the Act of 2002 till the disposal of the representation under Section 13(3A). He points out subsequent to the possession notice, the Bank has issued a sale notice in respect of the secured assets on February 18, 2019. According to him, both the possession notice and the sale notices are without jurisdiction and should be quashed.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the Bank submits that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was served upon the petitioner both personally as well as through post. The son of the petitioner received the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 on November 15, 2018. There is no reason why, the petitioner did not receive such notice or is not aware of the same. Therefore, the so-called representation under Section 13(3A) of the Act is beyond the period of sixty days from the date of the notice under Section 13(2). The petitioner not having responded under Section 13(3A) within sixty days between the receipt of the notice under Section 13(2), the actions taken by the Bank being made cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.