Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 700 (ALL)

Hari Shanker Dubey v. ICICI Bank Ltd. & Anr.

2010-02-24

ANIL KUMAR, RAKESH TIWARI

body2010
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of impugned noticed dated 20th of January, 2010 sent by an advocate on behalf of his client appended as Annexure-II to the writ petition. The petitioner has taken a home loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the ICICI Bank Ltd. Sapru Marg, Lucknow for construction of residential house. The aforesaid amount was sanctioned on floating rate of interest the last installment of which was payable on 07.10.2006. Thereafter, home loan facility agreement bearing A/C No. 1 BLU-00000-681729 was also executed between the peti­tioner and the ICICI Bank Ltd., which was original lender. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has received a reg­istered notice dated 20th January, 2010 from the advocate of the bank informing him that original lender has unconditionally and irre­vocably assigned and transferred all its right, title, interest and other documents in terms of section 5 of Securitization and Reconstruc­tion of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in the same ca­pacity to the opposite party No. 2. Copy of the said notice has been appended as Annex­ure-II to the writ petition. 4. A perusal of the notice shows that this notice has been served by Advocate Praful Srivastava of the High Court on instructions of client. M/s. Asset Reconstruction Co. (In­dia) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ARC1L having its registered office at Shrecpati Ar­cade, August Kranti Marg, Nana Chowk, Mumbai and a branch office at ARC1L ARMS office at 3/55, Park Road, Lucknow. The demand notice indicates that petitioner defaulted in repayment of interest and the principal amount of home loan under the loan facility agreement and it was shown as a non perform assets in the accounts of the bank, accordingly to file directives relating to as­sess classification time to time; By the de­mand notice balance outstanding amount of Rs. 957,087.53 as per schedule-I is thus:- Schedule-I @ Table ------------------- Loan Account No. .LBLU00000681729 Description of Dues Amount of debt in Rupees due ason20-Jan-10 Principal O/s Rs. 341, 521. OO/- Interest O/s Rs. 69.885.96/- Additional Interest O/s Rs. 35.243.57/- Other Charges O/s Rs. 10.437.00/- Total Outstanding Rs. 457.087.53/- The petitioner has filed his objections to the aforesaid notice dated 20th January, 2010 of the advocate. 5. 341, 521. OO/- Interest O/s Rs. 69.885.96/- Additional Interest O/s Rs. 35.243.57/- Other Charges O/s Rs. 10.437.00/- Total Outstanding Rs. 457.087.53/- The petitioner has filed his objections to the aforesaid notice dated 20th January, 2010 of the advocate. 5. We therefore, in these facts and circum­stances decline to interfere in this matter in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction un­der Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that the matter is pertaining to an agreement between the petitioner and ICICI bank which is a private bank. The pe­titioner has already submitted his objection to the notice impugned sent by the private counsel of the ICICI Bank. The petitioner has not challenged the transfer of the title right etc. by the ICICI Bank to the ARGIL ARMS Office No. 4, IInd Floor, Centre Court, 3/55, Park Road, Lucknow. Rather the prayer of the petitioner is a writ of certiorari for quash­ing the notice of the advocate for mandamus to the respondent-bank to decide the objec­tions at an early date. 6. In our considered opinion, notice under section 13(2) of Securitization and Recon­struction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act 2002) had been sent by an advocate on be­half of the petitioner informing that under instruction of his client M/s. ARCIL, ARMS, Lucknow the petitioner is to repay the loan to his clients bank. Merely issued a notice by a private advocate on behalf of his private client cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction nor mandamus can be issued to a private per­son or bank to decide objections of the peti­tioner private person. Merely because the sec­tion 13(2) of SARFAESI Act of 2002 is mentioned in the notice. 7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.