2017 (2) TMI 702

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30 lakhs and 25% margin had also to be invested by the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner was disbursed only Rs. 383.60 lakhs and the petitioner had to invest almost Rs. 4 crores for continuing with the project which as of now, has not been completed. The petitioner had also not paid any amount in repayment of the loan in which context, the respondent Bank had initiated proceedings against the petitioner. The default is admitted. 2. The petitioner also has a contention that the repayment commences only after the last disbursement of the loan amount sanctioned and the said disbursement has not been occasioned as of now. The respondent Bank however submits that whatever they had sanctioned has been fully disbursed to them in stages and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vidence the date of receipt. The communication shows that the Bank received the same only on 18.01.2016 after the 60 days period. 5. In such circumstance, the learned Standing Counsel would argue that there was absolutely no requirement for the respondent Bank to consider the objection. It is contended by the respondent Bank that the defaulter who receives a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act would be obliged to make an objection, if any within 60 days. Is such an objection has not been made then necessarily the secured creditor could proceed under subsection (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner who was the defaulter to the respondent Bank having received the notice under Section 13 (2) has an obligation to ....