MINNI DEVI Vs. CHAIRMAN, BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against the notice issued by the Respondent-Bank under Sub-section 4 of of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The said notice is dated 22nd June, 2007, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of the present petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in fact, the Petitioner has not taken any loan, but, the loan was taken by somebody else and the husband of the Petitioner was the guarantor and mortgaged the property belonging to the Petitioner. The principal amount of the loan has already been paid by the principal debtor. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before declaration of the non performing assets, no hearing was given to the Petitioner and, therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice, as envisaged under Sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 and, therefore, the notice issued under Sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, leaned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank, who has vehemently submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Respondent-Bank in issuing the notice under Sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 as the loan amount has neither been paid by the principal debtor nor by the guarantor and, therefore, notice has been issued. Moreover, the Petitioner is not remedy less. There is efficacious alternative remedy available to the Petitioner under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 to prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in , (2010) 8 SCC 110 and the decision rendered by this Court reported in, 2010 (1) JLJR 70.