ALLENA I AGENCIES Vs. NORTH KANARA GSB CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
LAWS(DR)-2006-2-8
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 21,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.J.Paratwar, - (1.) THIS application/appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SRFAESI Act') pertains to Flat No. 2, 1st Floor, Indrapuri CHS Ltd., Sion, Mumbai owned by applicant No. 3 Mortgagor.
(2.) The respondent took possession (symbolic) of the flat on 13.12.2003 on the applicants failure to clear the outstandings of Rs. 15,07,250.71 with interest @16.5% p.a. as demanded by notice dated 12.6.2003 issued under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act. The notice declared that the account became Non Performing Asset (NPA) from 1.4.1999 whereupon the applicants filed Writ Petition No. 1234 of 2004 in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay challenging the legality in the notice. The High Court, while directing the applicants to deposit Rs. 1.50 lakh (which amount is admittedly deposited) restrained the Bank from taking coercive steps. By order dated 4.5.2005, the writ petition was disposed of with direction that the interim relief shall continue for 8 weeks during which period the applicants could take appropriate steps. That is how this application/appeal is filed before filing of which, however, the respondent Bank had issued other notice dated 14.10.2004 under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act declaring that the account is classified as NPA from 31.3.2000 and demanding Rs. 16,43,432/- with interest. None of the averments under the heading 'facts of the case' or 'the grounds' are specific except that by issuing subsequent notice dated 14.10.2004 under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act, the Bank abandoned rights available to it under earlier notice dated 12.6.2003 and as such cannot take any action thereunder. The other grounds are omnibus namely that the claim is inflated; that the Bank has not clarified the rate of interest; that the Bank has not followed guidelines laid down in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra's case and there are mala fide on the part of the Bank in issuing second notice.
(3.) VIDE reply in the nature of affidavit of Mr. Vijay R. Nayak (Exh. 11), the Bank has inter alia contended that the application is barred by limitation. It is stated that applicant No. 1 is defaulter and that has no intention to make the payment. The S.A. is sought to be dismissed.;


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