Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2087 (ALL)

Kanwal Jeet Singh v. Union Bank of India

2004-10-15

PRADEEP KANT, RAJIV SHARMA

body2004
( 1 ) NOTICE on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by Sri S. C. Gulati. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been served with a notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 2. 8. 04, to which he has filed objections on 25. 9. 04. The petitioner has raised various pleas in the objections, including the plea that the said amount cannot be recovered under the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections have not yet been considered and no reasons have yet been communicated to the petitioner, as required by the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2004 (4) SCC 311 . ( 2 ) THE apprehension of the petitioner is that even without communicating the reasons as per the aforesaid pronouncement and even without passing an order under Section 13 (4) of the Act, further action of taking possession of the assets mentioned in the notice, which according to the Bank are the secured assets, would be taken. ( 3 ) SRI S. C. Gulati, appearing for the Bank says that it is a mere imagination of the petitioner that even without following the code of law and without following the law declared by the Supreme Court, further action would be taken. ( 4 ) WE have no reason to believe that petitioners objection would not be considered and reasons would not be communicated to him as per the case of mardia Chemical Ltd. (supra) and that possession of the assets mentioned in the notice would be taken even before passing an order under Section 13 (4)of the Act. . ( 5 ) WE, therefore, while disposing of the writ petition finally at this stage, direct that possession of the petitioners assets, as mentioned in the notice, shall not be taken unless the order under Section 13 (4) of the Act is passed as per law. ( 6 ) A further grievance has been raised by the petitioners counsel Sri prashant Chandra that the Bank is not allowing to make any deposit in the account of the petitioner, whereas Sri S. C. Gulati says that there is no such restriction imposed and the petitioner may deposit any amount, which he wants. ( 6 ) A further grievance has been raised by the petitioners counsel Sri prashant Chandra that the Bank is not allowing to make any deposit in the account of the petitioner, whereas Sri S. C. Gulati says that there is no such restriction imposed and the petitioner may deposit any amount, which he wants. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, further provide that in case the petitioner wants to make any deposit, the same shall be accepted by the Bank. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. . .