LAWS(RAJ)-2012-10-127

BHARAT LAL MEENA Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED

Decided On October 29, 2012
Bharat Lal Meena Appellant
V/S
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners took loan from the respondent -Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,80,820/ - and the agreement was executed between the parties on 30.12.2006. However, when the petitioners became defaulter and failed to repay the outstanding dues, the respondent -Bank initiated action against the petitioners for recovery of outstanding dues by serving notice under Sec. 13(1) of Raj. Agriculture Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 pursuant thereto, petitioners submitted their reply and raised objection that apart from the proceedings which the respondents have initiated against them under Sec. 13(1) of the Act, 1974, a separate notice was served under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the amount disclosed was much higher than what has been communicated under the present notice impugned herein and since one of the cheque tendered by the petitioners could not be encashed on account of insufficient funds, separate criminal proceedings have been instituted against them under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The submission of counsel is that three separate proceedings could not have been simultaneously initiated by the respondents for the self same cause of action and under these facts and circumstances, the present proceedings initiated under Sec. 13(1) of the Act, 1974, being arbitrary and requires interference by this Court.

(2.) THE submission made does not hold good for the reason that the Act, 1974 itself envisage that apart from the proceedings initiated under Sec. 13(1), it will not debar the Bank from seeking to enforce its rights in any other manner under any other law for the time being in force as contemplated under Sec. 13(3) of the Act, 1974; and if the Bank is taking steps to enforce its right by adopting the other mode as provided under the law, at least, the proceedings, which have been initiated under Sec. 13(1) of the Act, 1974, would not nullify because of the other action being initiated by the Bank for enforcement of its rights.