TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.1 and petitioner No.3 is the erstwhile Director of petitioner No.1. The petitioners have made many fold prayers. 2.1 The first prayer is to declare that the classification of the outstanding account of the petitioners as non-performing asset on 14th September, 2016 was illegal. Secondly, it is prayed to declare notice dated 14th October, 2016 issued by the respondent Bank as illegal. Petitioners in the third prayer prayed to set aside the said notice. The said notice dated 14th October, 2016 was a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The fourth prayer was to declare as illegal the possession notices dated 05th January, 2017 as wel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set. The respondent Bank invoked provisions of the Act and issued notice under Section 13(2) on 14th October, 2016. As per the said notice, outstanding balance towards Cash Credit Facility was Rs. 01,55,38,742.93 Ps. whereas towards Inland Letter of Credit Facility it was Rs. 02,58,60,835/-, aggregating to Rs. 04,13,95,779.93 Ps. 3.2 The petitioners replied to notice under Section 13(2) on 25th October, 2016 requesting for reconstruction or rescheduling of the debt and to find out solution. On 09th December, 2016, another reply through advocate was sent which was replied by the Bank on 15th December, 2016. Thereafter as the petitioners did not discharge their liability to pay, notices under Section 13(4) dated 05th January, 2017 was issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmission. He further submitted that the action of the Bank was required to be tested on the foundation of interest of the borrower. He next submitted that in the postdemonetization period the petitioners had already suffered. He also submitted that the secured properties were residential properties, therefore also relief may be granted to the petitioners. He also submitted that without taking physical possession, Bank could not have proceeded. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners, in order to support his submissions, relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311] in particular paragraph 44 thereof. In the next he relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in Kalabharati Adve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, whereafter notice under Section 13(4) was issued. He pointed out that symbolic possession of the secured assets had been taken. Eventhough the case is about the property having been given on rent, it was submitted, that no such details have been forthcoming and in any view, all such questions could be agitated before the appellate forum. He further pointed out that the petitioners were indolent as the auction notice was published as back as on 07th January, 2017 whereas the present petition came to be filed only in the first week of February, 2017. He thereafter submitted that the dues more than Rs. 04.00 crores have been unpaid. Countering the submission of the petitioners further, it was submitted that not a single farthing was depos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial forum is available in form of Debts Recovery Tribunal where appeal would lie. In the matters involving commercial disputes, it is trite that rule of availing alternative remedy should be adhered to steadfast. The principle on this aspect is unequivocal. 6. In Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366], the Apex Court held that remedy by way of appeal under Section 17 is available not only upto the stage referable to Section 13(4), but even in respect of measures taken post- 13(4) stage. In the present case, the stage at which the petitioner is beset with, is such stage. The petitioner is aggrieved person for the purpose of Section 17 of the Act. 6.1 In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Mah....