Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Respondent/SBI had issued notice dated 08.01.2018 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act whereby petitioner was informed that its loan account was declared as non- performing asset (NPA) with effect from 29.12.2017.

7. It is this notice dated 08.01.2018 issued by the respondent/SBI under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act which is under challenge in W.P.No.23067 of 2019. The challenge has been made on the ground that the said demand notice was bereft of any details. Respondent/SBI did not follow the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines regarding classification of loan account as NPA. As such, classification of the loan account of the petitioner as NPA is arbitrary and illegal. Respondent/SBI acted hastily in issuing the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act without waiting for the period of two years thirty days from the date of first default to expire. Therefore, respondent/SBI illegally and erroneously assumed jurisdiction under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.

46. Before we proceed to the next issue, we may also mention that classification of a defaulter's loan account as NPA precedes issuance of demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. As held in M/S. TANDRA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED (supra), if a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act does not give rise to any actionable claim or cause of action within the meaning of the SARFAESI Act, we fail to understand as to how action of the secured creditor in classifying the loan account as NPA can be challenged at this stage. The challenge thereto would also have to stand deferred till the stage of Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act is reached.

"In the light of the above discussion, we now examine the doctrine of election. There are three elements of election, namely, existence of two or more remedies; inconsistencies between such remedies and a choice of one of them. If any one of the three elements is not there, the doctrine will not apply. According to American Jurisprudence, 2d Vol. 25, page 652, if in truth there is only one remedy, then the doctrine of election does not apply. In the present case, as stated above, the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell's Equity (Thirty-first Edition, page 119), the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more co-existent remedies available to the litigants at the time of election which are repugnant and inconsistent. In any event, there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application".
after referring to Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act: (SCC p.162)
64. ... According to American Jurisprudence, 2d, Vol.25, p.652, if in truth there is only one remedy, then the doctrine of election does not apply. In the present case, as stated above, the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell's Principles of Equity (31st Edn., p.119), the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more co-existent remedies available to the litigants at the time of election which are repugnant and inconsistent. In any event, there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application.