LAWS(JHAR)-2010-5-136

ADITYA DUDANI Vs. CANARA BANK

Decided On May 17, 2010
Aditya Dudani Appellant
V/S
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, challenging a notice given under Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as "the SRFAESI Act, 2002" for the sake of brevity). The said notice is at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition dated 17th September, 2009.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner's account has not been declared as Non Performing Assets Account. No date of Non Performing Assets Account is given in the aforesaid notice at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by this Court, as reported in Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab & Sind Bank, A.I.R. 2009 Jhr. 14, and has also submitted that the Respondents have not given any reply under Sub -section (3 -A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 and, therefore also, the Respondents may be directed to give reply under Sub -section (3 -A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has given a reply to the show cause notice on 20th October, 2009, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. Thus, no Section can be initiated by the Respondent -Bank under Section 13 of the Act, 2002, in absence of any reply under Sub -section (3 -A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 and, thus, the notice dated 17th September, 2009 at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition, given under Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: