Notified co-operative bank recovery powers upheld, while writ relief was refused for suppression of material facts.

A notified co-operative bank may invoke the SARFAESI framework because the statutory definition of "bank" includes banks notified by the Central Government, and the notified inclusion of co-operative banks authorises action under Section 13. The petitioner was also denied discretionary writ relief because material facts about the loan and recovery steps were suppressed and the conduct was inconsistent with clean hands. As a result, the challenge to the possession notice failed and the bank's recovery proceedings remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a co-operative bank could invoke the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; and (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to discretionary writ relief in view of suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands.

Issue (i): whether a co-operative bank could invoke the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Analysis: The statutory scheme recognises "bank" for the purposes of the Act to include other banks notified by the Central Government. The notified inclusion of co-operative banks under S.O.105(E) dated 28.01.2003, read with Section 2(c)(v) of the Act and the regulatory context under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, was treated as authorising such banks to proceed under the securitisation framework.

Conclusion: The co-operative bank had jurisdiction to initiate action under Section 13 of the Act.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to discretionary writ relief in view of suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands

Analysis: The petitioner's knowledge of the loan transaction and recovery steps was found to have been suppressed, including his role as a witness to relevant borrower communications. Since writ relief is equitable in nature, suppression of material facts and conduct inconsistent with clean hands disentitled the petitioner to extraordinary relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to certiorari or other discretionary relief.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the possession notice failed and the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the bank's proceedings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notified co-operative bank may invoke the securitisation remedy under the Act, and writ relief can be refused where the petitioner suppresses material facts and approaches the Court without clean hands.

---