MAA FURNISHING Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. K. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent -Bank.

(2.) BY filing this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners in substance seek to challenge the notices issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure -IV) and 26.11.2013 (Annexure - IX), respectively.

(3.) WITHOUT burdening our order by narrating more facts in detail and suffice it to say that subsequent to the issuance of impugned notices dated 10.06.2013 under Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioner, a defaulting borrower of respondent Bank deposited a sum of Rs.93,424.00 on 6.11.2013 (Annexure -VII) with the respondent Bank against their total outstanding as is reflected in the accounts (Annexure -V). As a result of the said deposit made by the petitioner, the total outstanding balance, even according to the respondent Bank that remains now, works out to Rs.25,000/ - approximately on the petitioner. In the light of all these undisputed facts, broadly, the only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the impugned notices under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the Act have become bad in law in the light of the embargo created under Section 31(j) of the Act. In other words, the submission was that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act does not apply to the case in which the amount due is less than 20% of the principal amount and interest thereon and since in this case, the petitioners' total outstanding which is now payable is less than 20% of the principal amount and interest payable thereon and therefore the Bank has no right to take recourse to Section 13(1) for realization of the remaining outstanding from the petitioner by virtue of bar created under Section 31(j) ibid.