ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter No. SAMB/CLO-III/371 dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the compromise proposal accepted by the respondent-Bank in terms with the letter dated 27.03.2018 has been rejected without any basis before the time schedule for making payment of the settlement amount frustrating the efforts of the petitioner to deposit the balance settlement amount only with a view to forfeit the amount already deposited by the petitioner in terms with the compromise acceptance letter dated 27.03.2018. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Bank to revive the earlier compromise acceptance letter dated 27.03.2018 extending the time for payment of the balance amount of settlement, as the petitioner was always ready and willing to make payment of the balance settlement amount, however, subsequently violating the terms and conditions of the compromise acceptance letter issued by the respondent-Bank itself, letter No. SAMB/CLOIII/397 dated 13.08.2018 was issued offering the petitioner to deposit the settlement amount of Rs.8,43,19,448/- within a period of six months. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the possession notice dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the authorized officer of the respondent-Bank under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2002'] whereby the immovable properties mortgaged in favour of the respondentBank have been taken over exercising the power conferred under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act, 2002') inasmuch as the possession notice dated 23.08.2018 is completely contrary to the settlement offer given by the respondent-Bank itself in terms with the letter dated 13.08.2018 granting six months' time to the petitioner for making payment of the entire settlement amount.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, at the very outset, raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court without taking recourse of alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy provided under the law including Sections 17 & 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as the respondent-Bank has already issued the possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2002 exercising power under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the present writ petition, it appears that one of the prayers made by the petitioner is for quashing the action taken by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.