//
you're reading...
legal issues

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) =It is evident from the record that petitioners 1 to 6 were served with the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 01.12.2010 and as far as petitioner No.7 is concerned, the same was stated to be published in two newspapers on 01.02.2011. Subsequently, the petitioners made representation to the respondent-bank on 27.10.2011, requesting to consider their case, to which the bank gave reply, dated 31.01.2011, rejecting their representation. Copies of the said reply of the bank, which were acknowledged by the petitioners, were also filed along with the counter-affidavit, which shows that the petitioners were given due opportunity to put their case to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and subsequently, the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

Aerial view of Visakhapatnam, India.

Image via Wikipedia

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

WRIT PETITION No.7018 of 2011

 

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

 

          This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing notice, dated 31.01.2011, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and the consequential notice, dated 10.02.2011, issued under Section 13(4) of the Act insisting the petitioners to deliver possession of their respective flats in Sy.No.177/1, Sujatha Nagar Area, Chinamushidiwada Village, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioners obtained house building loan from the respondent-bank for purchase of their respective flats. As they committed default in payment of the loan instalments, the respondent-bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the petitioners on 31.01.2011, asking them to clear the dues. Later, the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was published in Eenadu and Hindu Daily Newspaper, on 10.02.2011, insisting the petitioners to deliver possession of their respective flats. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in issuing the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act.

Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-bank, wherein it is categorically stated that the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioners on 01.12.2010 and thereafter, the petitioners have given a representation to the bank on 27.01.2011, and the respondent-bank gave a reply, dated 31.01.2011, rejecting their representation and demanded the petitioners to pay the due amount, failing which the proceedings under the Act will be taken.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.7 was not served with the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act; that the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was published without giving the statutory period of 60 days for the petitioners to pay the due amount and as such, he prayed the Court to allow the writ petition.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank contended that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served personally on petitioners 1 to 6 and insofar as petitioner No.7, the same was published in two daily news papers viz., Eenadu and Hindu of Visakhapatnam Edition; that the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued only after expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act; and that the respondent-bank has duly followed the procedure contemplated under the Act.

Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the relevant material papers on record.

It is evident from the record that petitioners 1 to 6 were served with the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 01.12.2010 and as far as petitioner No.7 is concerned, the same was stated to be published in two newspapers on 01.02.2011. Subsequently, the petitioners made representation to the respondent-bank on 27.10.2011, requesting to consider their case, to which the bank gave reply, dated 31.01.2011, rejecting their representation. Copies of the said reply of the bank, which were acknowledged by the petitioners, were also filed along with the counter-affidavit, which shows that the petitioners were given due opportunity to put their case to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act and subsequently, the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued.

In the light of the said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________

JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

___________________________

JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR­­­­­­­­­

04th July 2011

DR

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,952 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: