MADHURI DEVI Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Dena Bank. The petitioner has approached this Court against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the respondent Bank.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act was issued to the petitioner on 28.4.2008 to which the petitioner filed her objection on 26.5.2008, which has not yet been disposed of by the Bank contrary to the provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the Act and on the other hand, the respondent Bank has proceeded with the matter and issued a notice of possession on 25.2.2013. Certain complaints have also been made by the petitioner regarding the non-cooperation by the Bank in the realization of the dues from the Insurance Company which insurance was made through the Bank and the amount was debited from the account of the petitioner and subsequently during the currency of the insurance policy, the shop of the petitioner was burgled and the goods were stolen by a thief, with respect to which the matter is pending before the Consumer Forum since the year 2004.

(3.) This Court is of the view that the Bank has not acted with any sense of responsibility in the matter. If the insurance had been made through the Bank, then all co-operation ought to have been made to the petitioner by the Bank with respect to recovery of the amount.