Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1584 (PAT)

Brij Kishore Prasad v. State Bank Of India

2007-09-26

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State Bank of India. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 17.5.2006 issued by the State Bank of India under Sec. 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. This notice has been served on the petitioner on 7.6.2007 directing him to discharge his full liability by depositing the entire dues amount of the bank, within 60 days. Petitioners case is that notice is completely silent as to when his Account was declared non-performing. The respondent-Bank without considering the petitioners representation has further issued notice under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAISI Act. Parallel proceeding has been initiated by the respondent-Bank under the SARFAISI Act, though for realisation of the same amount O.A. No. 124/99 is pending for disposal at its final stage, before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 3. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, has submitted that the Bank has to initiate simultaneously proceeding under the SARFAISI Act as the petitioner is intentionally delaying the disposal of O.A. No. 124/99. As provided under the decision reported in (2004)IV SCC 311, there is no power for initiating parallel proceeding under the SARFAISI Act. The writ application is not maintainable as the Bank has already issued notice under Sec. 13(4) of the Act. In this circumstance petitioners remedy lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna under Sec. 17 of SARFAISI Act. 4. Sec. 17 of SARFAISI Act provides right to appeal to any one who is aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent-Bank under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAISI Act. Sec. 17 provides forum to aggrieved person by way of an appeal preferred before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna within 45 days from the date of issuance of notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. 5. The counsel for the Bank submits that the petitioner has still time for preferring an appeal before the DRT, Patna under Sec. 17 of the said Act as under Sec. 13(4) notice was issued to the petitioner on 7.9.2007. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has still time for preferring an appeal before the DRT, Patna but he is given further three weeks time from today for filing appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna under Sec. 17 of the Act. 7. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has still time for preferring an appeal before the DRT, Patna but he is given further three weeks time from today for filing appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna under Sec. 17 of the Act. 7. In case such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within the stipulated time, the Bank will not take any coersive step against the petitioner, so far the mortgaged assests of the petitioner are concerned. The DRT, Patna will treat the appeal preferred by the petitioner within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The Presiding Officer of the DRT, Patna will dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The Petitioner as well as respondent will not take unnecessary adjournments in the case so that the appeal may be decided without any undue delay. O.A. No. 124/99 should also be heard simultaneously, side by side for deciding the matter for final disposal of the matter. 8. With these observations/directions writ application is disposed of.