Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1121 (MP)

Sanjay Kumar Soni v. Canara Bank

2020-10-14

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, A.C.J. - The petition is directed against the notice under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter shall be referred to as "2002 Act"). 2. In view of the law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Velocity Ltd., Indore v. State Bank of India, (2011) 2 MPLJ 224 a writ petition against a show cause notice under Section 13 (2) of 2002 Act is not tenable. It is held: "14. On a close scrutiny of the provisions of the Act of 2002 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, (2004) 2 MPLJ 408 (SC), in the case of Punjab National Bank and another v. M/s. Imperial Gift House and others,2009 INSC 1074 and in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 , we find that it is not justifiable to entertain a writ petition against the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 and also against the communication of reason by the secured creditor to the borrower about non-acceptability or untenability of the representation or objection. Such communication is not an order/action causing harm to the borrower but is a step before taking recourse to one or more of the measures provided under Section 13(4). It is only when such measure under Section 13(4) is taken it can be said that the borrower is aggrieved and only on taking of such measure the borrower can take recourse to the provision of appeal provided under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act of 2002 the object behind making amendment by way of introducing Section 13 (3A) and the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited in our considered view the communication of reasons is only for the purpose of information/knowledge of the borrower, and the same being not an action to cause harm to the borrower, at that stage it cannot be assailed. Having regard to the scope of provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 2002, the reasons so communicated can be well assailed in case measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 are taken by the secured creditor. This being the scheme of the Act of 2002, any interference by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of notice under Section 13 (2) and at the state of communication of rejection of representation/objection under section 13 (3A) of the Act of 2002 would hamper the process of recovery, defeating the very purpose of introducing Section 13 (3A) in the Act of 2002." 3. In view whereof as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Tondon (supra) that an order passed under sub-Section (4) of Section 13 of Act, 2002 can be assailed before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 Act, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence. 4. Consequently the petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the petition will not come in the way of the petitioner seeking redressal of his grievance before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of 2002 Act.