SATYAM ASSOCIATES Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Mr. Ramawatar Chamaria, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Respondent-bank has filed a case before D.R.T after this writ petition was filed, which has been heard and order is reserved, and therefore the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act could not be issued till the liability is decided. He further submitted that Petitioner has got no remedy of appeal in view of explanation to Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

(3.) In reply, Mrs. Rawat, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, submitted that it has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Transcore v. Union of India, 2008 1 SCC 125 that the secured creditor/bank can proceed under SARFAESI ACT even during pendency of the case before DRT. She further submitted that the bank was perfectly justified in issuing the notice under Section 13(2). She also submitted that the possession was taken on 4.1.2010 under Section 13(4) after considering Petitioner?s objection filed under Section 13(3-A) and Petitioner was fully aware of taking possession. Moreover, it was personally served on the Petitioner but Petitioner has wrongly stated that no such communication was made to him. She submitted that Petitioner had remedy of appeal within 45 days from taking possession of the property. She further clarified that explanation to Section 17 debars a borrower from moving DRT against communication of the Bank but it did not debar the borrower from filing appeal against the measures taken by the bank referred to in sub Section (4) of Section 13 of SARFAESI Act.