Judgment:
ORDER (ORAL):
(PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing the entire proceeding recommenced by the respondent by sending another notice 07.01.2011 (Annexure P/3) under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act').
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits the petitioner had availed various loans and credit facilities from the respondent bank. Since there were certain defaults in payment of loan installments as per the terms agreed, the respondent bank issued notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on 21.03.2009, which was replied on 05.05.2009 but the same was denied to be accepted by the respondent bank. The respondent Bank, thereafter, proceeded under section 14 of the Act, 2002 which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5040/2009. the said petition was allowed directing the respondent bank to decide the objection filed by the petitioner within a period of 10 days and pass speaking and reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. However, the respondent-bank has issued another notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on 07.01.2011 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner replied to the said notice on 25.02.2011 (Annexure P/4) taking various objections regarding maintainability etc. Shri Sharma further submits that the respondent-Bank has further issued a corrigendum letter dated 04.02.2011 (Annexure P/5) to rectify the irregularities in the earlier notice dated 07.01.2011 issued under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002.
3. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the corrigendum letter dated 04.02.2011 is without jurisdiction and in view of that, the earlier notice dated 07.01.2011 issued under the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 be quashed. Shri Sharma further submits that the entire proceedings, as the same has not been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2002, also deserve to be quashed.
4. Be that as it may, no steps can be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 2002 without affording proper opportunity of hearing, as section 13 prescribes steps before taking possession of the secured assets under sub section (4) of section 13 of the Act, 2002 and if the steps have been taken under section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, after considering the reply of the borrower to the notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002, an appeal is maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act, 2002.
5. The initial notice dated 07.01.2011 was responded to by the petitioner after the corrigendum letter was issued on 04.02.2011. Thus, at the most, it can be held that the limitation prescribed under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 would be computed from the date, the corrigendum letter was issued and not from the date the first notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 07.01.2011. Thus, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the above stated grounds as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the stage of taking action under section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 has not come, the instant petition is not maintainable. If any action is taken after considering the reply of the petitioner as according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the reply has been filed, the petitioner, thereafter, may approach the appellate authority as provided under section 17 of the Act, 2002.
6. Thus, this petition being premature at this stage, is dismissed.