SUNITA AJMERA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after having lost in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) 1054/11 has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"), framed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the SARFAESI Act").

(2.) Heard Miss Anita Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of the petition.

(3.) The petitioner earlier had filed CWP being No. 7370/11 challenging the action of the concerned respondent-Bank in issuing notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to the principal borrower. The petitioner being the guarantor mortgagor was aggrieved by the said action taken under the SARFAESI Act and therefore, had filed the said petition. The learned single judge vide order dated 26th May, 2011 dismissed the said petition by holding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the DBCSA No. 1054/11, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27th July, 2011. It appears that thereafter the petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur by filing SA challenging the auction notice dated 8-7-2011 issued by the respondent-Bank on various grounds and also seeking other reliefs. It further appears that since the Registry of Debt Recovery Tribunal demanded fees on the said appeal on the full amount of debt to be recovered from the borrower and the guarantors, as per Rule 13 of the said Rules, the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of filing the present petition challenging the vires of Rule 13 of the said Rules.