2014 (4) TMI 1183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urther enhancement to Rs. 93 crores but that was not sanctioned. 3. While the Bank was processing the request of Devi Ispat, it issued a letter to it on 10th January 2013 informing that its cash credit account is irregular inasmuch as the outstanding was about Rs. 11.7 crores against the permissible limit of Rs. 5.6 crores. Devi Ispat was also informed that it was not servicing the interest of cash credit, Foreign Currency Non-Resident Bank Account etc. It was also informed that its account was heading for becoming a non-performing asset (NPA) and Devi Ispat was requested to regularize all its accounts by 14th January 2013 failing which there would be no alternative but to call up the advance. 4. Devi Ispat replied to the above letter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ismissed it by an order dated 19th March 2013 on the sole ground that Devi Ispat had an alternate statutory remedy under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act to make a representation against the letter issued under Section 13(2) thereof. 10. Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act reads as follows: "13. Enforcement of security interest. (1), (2) and (3) xxx (3A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within one week of receipt of such re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ile upholding the view of the learned Single Judge and despite the fact that the representation made by Devi Ispat had been rejected on 2nd April 2013, the Division Bench heard the matter on merits. However, it did not deal with the merits of the case since Devi Ispat had availed of the statutory remedy available to it. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Devi Ispat was dismissed on 26th April 2013. 15. While challenging the order dated 26th April 2013 passed by the Division Bench, learned counsel submitted that Devi Ispat had no alternative but to file a writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Bank on 18th January 2013. We find no merit in this contention. 16. Firstly, Devi Ispat had an alternate remedy to make a representati....