KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed raising large number of issues including factual controversy pointing out that the documents with the bank are not genuine and signature of the petitioner purported to have been made on the same are forged. However, at the time of submission Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the case that the notice under Section 13 (4) of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the "act")has been issued without meeting the requirement of section 13 (3-A) of the Act read with Rule 3-A of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules, 2002 (hereinafter called the "rules" ).

(2.) THE facts necessary for determining the controversy invoked herein are that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 13-2-2008 (Annex. 1 ). The petitioner submitted his objection through his counsel Shri N. Pati on 7-3-2008 taking several objections including factual controversies. In spite of raising the objection, the impugned notice dated 28-5-2008 under Section 13 (4) of the Act has been issued without deciding the said objections. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) MR. P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 13 (3-A)of the Act and Rule 3-A of the Rules it was mandatory on the part of the opposite party no. 1 - authority to first deal with the objection filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order and only then to issue notice under section 13 (4) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 28-5-2008 is liable to be quashed.