Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 13(3a) in M/S. Aiphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd vs Andhra Bank on 24 January, 2020Matching Fragments
8. When this was not replied to, they gave another letter on 08-11-2017 also.
9. On 02-07-2018, the 1st respondent issued another notice under Rule 8(6) informing the petitioners that the property would be sold with reserve price of Rs.2.60 crores and thereafter on 20-08-2018, it gave an e-auction sale notice under Rule 9(1) proposing to conduct auction on 11-09-2018.
10. On 01-10-2018, the 1st petitioner filed S.A.No.385 of 2018 under Section 17 of the Act to declare the said e-auction sale notice dt.20-08-2018 holding auction of the property on 11-09-2018 as illegal, void; to declare the possession notice dt.03-03-2017 without considering representation dt.01-11-2016 as illegal and contrary to Section 13(3A) of the Act and to set it aside; to declare the possession notice dt.03-03-2017 under Section 13(4) as illegal and void; to declare the taking of possession of the subject property in May,2017 as illegal and void; to declare the sale notice dt.02-07-2018 as illegal; and to declare the action MSR,J & KL,J ::6:: wp_13936_2019 of the 1st respondent in not responding to the regularization proposal made by the petitioners despite accepting the same and directing the petitioners to get additional security, valuation, legal opinion and personal site inspection as against banking practice, prudential norms and RBI guidelines.
53. The petitioners had specifically contended before the Debts Recovery Tribunal that Section 13(3A) was violated since its representations dt.01.11.2016 and 06.11.2016 to the demand notice MSR,J & KL,J ::19:: wp_13936_2019 dt.01.08.2016 under Section 13(2) of the Act was not considered by the 1st respondent Bank.
54. In the counter filed in the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the 1st respondent Bank, it stated that no objections were raised to the demand notice dt.01.08.2016 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act.
60. Similar view has also been taken by the Mumbai High Court in its order dt.23-03-2016 in W.P.No.222 of 2015 (M/s.Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. Vs. IFCI Limited). A single Judge of the Mumbai High Court held that there is no specific provision and/or mandate in Section 13(3A) MSR,J & KL,J ::21:: wp_13936_2019 of the Act that the representation of the borrower to the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act should be filed within the period of sixty days from the date of the notice; that there is an obligation upon secured creditors to reply and to take decision on the borrower's representation to the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and communicate it within fifteen days from the date of receipt of representation; lack of response of the secured creditor to the borrower's representation within fifteen days from its receipt goes to the root of the matter; merely because it was received one day beyond the period of sixty days, the secured creditor cannot say that they need not decide and communicate any reasoned order.
73. In our opinion, not only these reliefs are not barred by limitation, even the relief sought by the petitioners about violation of Section 13(3A) of the Act by not considering petitioners' representation dt.01.11.2016/0611.2016 to the demand notice dt.01.08.2016 under Section 13(2) of the Act, is within limitation because the symbolic possession notice dt.03.03.2017 issued by the Bank ignoring the 01.11.2016 representation of the petitioners, could not have been challenged at that time because of the bar contained in proviso to Section 13(3A) and the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act.