Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 536 (MAD)

Gain N Nature Food Products v. Union Of India

2014-02-27

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, M.JAICHANDREN

body2014
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and the third respondents. 3. These writ petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue writs of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding against the petitioners, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. In W.P.No.34965 of 2013, it has been stated that the petitioner is a company dealing in nutritional and health care products. The petitioner company's annual turn over is close to 45 crores. 5. In W.P.No.34964 of 2013, it has been stated that the petitioner is a company manufacturing health drinks and supplements. 6. The petitioners had approached the second respondent bank for obtaining a loan and for the extension of certain credit facilities. The petitioners had furnished several items of immovable properties as securities for the loans obtained from the second respondent bank. While so, the petitioner companies had defaulted in the repayment of the loans obtained by them due to various market and other factors. Therefore, the second respondent bank had issued notices dated 1.8.2007, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. No reply had been sent by the petitioners to the said notices, as the petitioners had approached the second respondent bank for settling the matters. While so, the second respondent bank had assigned the loans to the third respondent, without disclosing to the petitioners the same. 7. No notices had been issued to the petitioners before the second respondent had assigned the loans to the third respondent. However, the third respondent had issued notices to the petitioners, dated 1.11.2013, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners had sent replies, dated 14.12.2013, explaining their position. The petitioners had also wanted the third respondent to furnish certain documents, which were in its possession, to submit replies to the claims made by the third respondent. However, the relevant documents had not been furnished to the petitioners. The petitioners had sent replies, dated 14.12.2013, explaining their position. The petitioners had also wanted the third respondent to furnish certain documents, which were in its possession, to submit replies to the claims made by the third respondent. However, the relevant documents had not been furnished to the petitioners. The One Time Settlement offer made by the petitioners had not been accepted by the third respondent. No valid reasons had been assigned for the non-acceptance of the proposal. The second respondent did not inform the petitioners about the assignment of the loans to the third respondent. Further, the actual amounts assigned had not been informed to the petitioners, in spite of their requests for the necessary particulars. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petitions before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the view that the present writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are pre-mature in nature. we are of the considered view that it would not be open to the petitioners to pray for writs of Mandamus requesting this Court to forbear the respondents 2 and 3 from initiating proceedings against the petitioners, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. No such reliefs could be granted to the petitioners, restraining the second and third respondents from initiating proceedings against the petitioners under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.Further, the petitioners cannot be held to be aggrieved parties, merely for the reason that notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,had been issued against them. 9. It is also noted that it was open to the petitioners to submit their replies to the notices issued by the second and the third respondents, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Thereafter, if further proceedings are initiated by the second and the third respondents, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioners could challenge the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned, if so advised, in the manner known to law. Thereafter, if further proceedings are initiated by the second and the third respondents, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioners could challenge the same before the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned, if so advised, in the manner known to law. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the present writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioners, before this Court, are premature in nature. Therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 are closed.