TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 1267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, quash the same and to direct the Respondent to restore possession of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner in his supporting affidavit would contend that the Petitioner approached the Respondent/ Bank for credit facilities. On 7.1.1995, the credit facilities sanctioned by the Respondent were cash credit limit for ₹ 30 lakhs. 3. In respect of the action of the Petitioner, there was a claim by the Respondent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 for recovery of a sum of ₹ 33,18,464/- with interest at 15% per annum from 23.04.2003 with quarterly rests till realisation with costs. The Petitioner is stated to have filed a suit before this Court in C.S. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk having issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act earlier on 19.9.2003 to which the Petitioner sent his objection on 17.12.2003, is not entitled in law to issue another notice under the same provision as has been now issued under the impugned notice dated 8.6.2009. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by virtue of the Petitioner's objection dated 17.12.2003 it will have to be taken that the notice dated 19.9.2003 issued by the Respondent stood closed and the Respondent/ Bank is estopped from issuing any notice under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Learned Counsel also contended that entertaining a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act would otherwise, revive a time barred claim of the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent/ Bank relating to the liability of the Petitioner to the Bank, it has been dealt with in detail in the common order dated 4.12.2009 passed in O.A. No. 28 of 2008 and Counter Claim No. 1 of 2009. Therefore, as on date, there is a decree as against the Petitioner for a sum of ₹ 33,18,464/- with interest and costs. The Petitioner though would contend that his intention to file an appeal against the decree dated 4.12.2009, there are no details as to whether any appeal has been filed at all as on this date. That apart in paragraph Nos. 19, 23 and 24 of the affidavit of the Petitioner, there is a categoric statement made by the Petitioner to the effect that he has filed an appeal apparently invoking Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank is entitled to invoke Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act once on 19.9.2003 and again by issuing subsequent notice on 8.6.2009. In the first place, the said contention need not be gone into in this writ petition since the Petitioner is stated to have chosen to challenge the subsequent notice issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, dated 23.11.2009 by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In any event, we do not find any statutory prohibition in law from issuing any fresh notice. Reliance placed upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioner the decision of a learned single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in Stan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab and Sind Bank AIR 2009 JH 14 cannot be applied inasmuch as that was a case where after the issuan....