Decided on December 03,2004



K.J.Paratwar, - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 17(1) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short Securitization Act.).
(2.) The appellant-the former employee of the respondent has challenged legality and validity of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act, dated 13.10.2003 and 5.11.2003 and notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, dated 29.7.2004. By the impugned notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization Act, the respondent had called upon the appellant to pay Rs. 4,68,077.42 Ps. being outstanding under term loan. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 5147/2000 in Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the notice which came to be disposed of (in view of the Apex Court's judgment of Mardia Chemical's case) by Hon'ble Division Bench of the parent High Court, Bench at Nagpur by order dated 30.4.2004, inter alia giving liberty to the appellant to make representation to the Bank against the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act whereupon the Bank was to appropriately consider and communicate its decision. By letter dated 17.2.2004, the appellant had in the meanwhile called upon the Bank to clarify certain points. Pursuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court, the appellant gave letter dated 11.6.2004 referring to the earlier letter dated 17.2.2004. The Bank failed to give reply to said representation but proceeded to take symbolic possession of the secured asset being Plot No. 13A in survey No. 2D/1 within the Ward No. 6, Mouza Jat Tarodi, Wanjari Nagar, Distt. Nagpur. The appeal is, therefore, filed challenging the legality and validity of the notice and action on following grounds: (i) The claim is barred by limitation. (ii) The respondent did not consider the representation given by the appellant let alone communicate its decision as ordered by Hon'ble High Court. (iii) The Appellant did not create any mortgage in respect of the property. Certain other contentions are taken up but they cannot be said to be the grounds of appeal. By reply Exh. 9 in the nature of affidavit of Mr. S.B. Sawant, Authorized Officer, the respondent Bank has omnibusly contended that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and that the appeal is not within limitation. Certain averments about the working of the appellant and criminal case filed by the appellant against the officer of the respondent are made but they have no bearing on the lis in the matter. On the grounds of appeal, the Bank denies that the claim is barred by limitation and that the secured asset was not created. It is stated that since the appellant did not give any representation even while allowed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in the Writ Petition referred to above, there was no question of bank considering the same or communicating its decision.
(3.) I have heard arguments of learned Counsel representing the rival parties. I have gone through the copies of documents annexed to the Memo of Appeal and the reply.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.