Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 404 (MAD)

K. S. Rangaswamy v. State Bank of India

2014-02-20

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J.- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the notice, dated 10.10.2013, issued by the authorized officer of the respondent Bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. All the issues raised before this court in the present writ petition have been covered by the decision of this court, dated 20.2.2014, made in W.P.No.33351 of 2013. Paragraph 13 of the said order reads as follows: "13. From the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank it is clear that it would not be open to the borrower to challenge the notice issued by the secured creditor, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The issuance of such a notice by the secured creditor cannot be held to be arbitrary or invalid, under ordinary circumstances. There is no doubt that the borrower could have a right to submit a reply to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. Thereafter, it is for the secured creditor to consider the reply submitted by the borrower and to take necessary steps, if any, in accordance with the procedures established by the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. However, it is clear that there is no vested right in the borrower to challenge the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If further proceedings are initiated by the secured creditor, pursuant to the said notice, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in the manner known to law. If further proceedings are initiated by the secured creditor, pursuant to the said notice, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in the manner known to law. No special circumstances are found to exist in the present case for this court to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the respondent Bank, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, at this stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent proceedings that may be initiated against it, by the respondent Bank, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, before the appropriate forum, as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is premature in nature and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 4. In view of the decision of this court, dated 20.2.2014, made in W.P.No.33351 of 2013, wherein similar issues had been raised, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner before this court is premature in nature. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent proceedings that may be initiated against it, by the respondent Bank, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same, if so advised, before the appropriate forum, as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.