RAJESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-bank.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice, contained in annexure 1, issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the creditor, whereby he has been called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 1,12,70,963 within sixty days from the date of the notice and further, indicating that, in default, besides exercising other rights of the bank available under law, the bank is intending to exercise any or all of the powers as provided under Section 13(4) of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that the matter regarding the said debt is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of the bank and, as such, availing of remedy under the Act by way of notice (annexure 1) and consequently, prosecuting both the remedies is not permissible in law in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions. In support of this, learned counsel has cited the decision in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-rolling Mills [1994] 80 Comp Cas 140 ; AIR 1994 SC 2151.