2004 (6) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt case, is whether the action taken under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by respondent No. 1 is valid in view of the Law laid down by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 51 SCL 513 . Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for petitioner, states that in the instant case notice under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the said Act is issued to the Petitioner on 9th September, 2003. The petitioner filed Objection to the said notice on 7th November, 2003. However, the said objection has neither been considered by respondent No. 1, nor there is any reasoned order passed by respondent No. 1 for rejecting the objection, no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommunicated to the petitioner, who will be entitled to take appropriate steps thereafter, according to law. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by respective counsel. perused the judgment of the Apex Court. The controversy in issue is concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the above referred decision and the relevant observations of the Apex Court in Paragraph 80 of the judgment read thus :- "80. Under the Act in consideration, we find that before taking action a notice of 60 days is required to be given and after the measures under section 13(4) of the Act have been taken, a mechanism has been provided under section 17 of the Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The above noted provisions are for the purposes of gi....