Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.1 On the merits of the case, it was pointed out that pursuant to the notice issued under section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioners had filed objections/representation on 15 th February, 2014. That in view of the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act, it is mandatory for the secured creditor to consider such representation or objection and in case the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he is required to communicate, within 15 days of receipt of such representation or objection, the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower. It was submitted that compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act is mandatory in nature and that in the absence of compliance thereof, the Additional District Magistrate could not have exercised powers under section 14 of the Act. The attention of the court was invited to the provisions of section 14 of the Act to point out that the first proviso to sub-section (1) thereof provides that an application made by the secured creditor shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor inter alia declaring that the objection/representation in reply to the notice received by the borrower has been considered by the secured creditor and reasons for non- compliance of such objection/representation has been communicated to the borrower. It was submitted that the second proviso thereto mandates that the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall after satisfying the contents of the affidavit, pass suitable orders for taking possession of the secured assets. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, when the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act had not been complied with by the respondent bank, the learned Additional District Magistrate could not have passed any order under section 14 thereof. Thus, the learned Additional District Magistrate has not satisfied himself about the contents of the affidavit prior to passing the order for taking over possession of the secured assets. Under the circumstances, the impugned order being contrary to the provisions of section 14 cannot be sustained.

(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors."

9.2 The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, was relied upon for the proposition that it is settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective remedy is available to an aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. Mr. Pahwa submitted that the contention that the response or reply to the objection/representation made pursuant to the notice under section 13(2) of the Act does not record reasons as required under section 13(3A) of the Act can be agitated under section 17 of the Act. It was argued that there is no averment in the memorandum of petitions as to why the remedy under section 17 of the Act is not an efficacious remedy and that the petitioners should justify their act of approaching this court and as to why the alternative remedy has not been resorted to.

9.6 As regards non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act, it was submitted that by the communication dated 11th March, 2014, the respondent Bank had informed the petitioners that their request was not acceptable to it and hence the requirements of section 13(3A) of the Act stand duly satisfied. Besides, the petitioners, in their representation pursuant to the notice under section 13(2) had merely sought re-schedulement of the loan and had not raised any objection which required reasons to be furnished, and hence, non furnishing of the reasons for not accepting the representation does not in any manner cause any prejudice to the petitioners and consequently, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of section 13(3A) of the Act. It was submitted that all the while talks were going on between the petitioners and the Bank and therefore, also the submission regarding non compliance with the provisions of section 13(3A) of the Act is misplaced. It was also submitted that the Bank has followed all the necessary procedure as required under the Act and possession notice had been affixed at the site on 10th April, 2014 and hence, there is no warrant for interference by this court.

18. On behalf of the respondent bank, it has been contended that if the matter were placed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the respondent bank would be in a position to lead evidence to show that it has duly complied with the requirements of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act by indicating the nature of the talks which were going on between the parties. In this regard, it may be noted that the second proviso to section 14 of the Act requires the Additional District Magistrate to record satisfaction in respect of the factual correctness of the assertions made in the affidavit. In the present case, not only does the affidavit not contain the requisite assertions as regards compliance of the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act, even the communication dated 11th March, 2014 whereby the bank contends that it has turned down the request of the petitioners has not been placed on record. Evidently therefore, the Additional District Magistrate could not have recorded any satisfaction as regards due compliance with the said provisions. Besides, as noticed earlier, a perusal of the communication dated 11th March, 2014 clearly shows that the same has been issued in the context of a communication dated 10th March, 2014 of the petitioners and not in the context of the representation/objections raised by the petitioners pursuant to the notice under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. Hence, in the absence of compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 13 of the Act, one fails to understand as to what evidence could be led to prove compliance thereof.