AUTHORIZED OFFICER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. ASHOK SAW MILL
LAWS(SC)-2009-7-148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on July 16,2009

AUTHORIZED OFFICER,INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Appellant
VERSUS
ASHOK SAW MILL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.) Leave granted in both the Special leave petitions.
(2.) The respondent firm and its sister concern, M/s. Ashok Woodworks, which is also a partnership firm, availed of various loans from the appellant - Bank which were secured by movable and immovable assets. The loanee firms having defaulted in repayment of the loans and since their accounts became Non Performing Assets (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA'), the Bank initiated action against them under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') and issued separate demand notices to the respondent partnership firm and its sister concern under Section 13(2) thereof on 17th September, 2002, and 21st September, 2002, for the recovery of Rs.1,56,47,638/- and Rs. 1,40,18,468.36, respectively.
(3.) As the respondent and its sister concern did not respond to the said demand notices, the appellant-Bank invoked Section 13(4) of the above Act and took possession of the secured assets on 4th December, 2002. The said action of the Bank, as also the vires of the SARFAESI Act, were challenged by the respondent-partnership firm and its sister concern by way of two separate writ petitions, being Writ Petition Nos.46328 and 46329 of 2002, in which an interim stay of all further proceedings under the said Act was granted on 27th December, 2002. The said writ petitions were ultimately heard and dismissed by a common order on 23rd April, 2004, with liberty to the respondent-firm to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), within 30 days. Since, despite such liberty, the respondent-firm did not approach the DRT, the Bank took a decision to sell the secured assets of the respondent firm. At that stage, negotiations were held between the parties for a One-Time Settlement, which also failed, causing the Bank to issue a sale notice dated 26th July, 2007, inviting sealed tenders for the sale of the secured assets of the firm. The same was challenged by the respondent-firm on 18th August, 2007, in Writ Petition No.27472 of 2007 on the ground that it was unable to move the DRT in view of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. After hearing the parties, the High Court refused to grant any interim relief and posted the writ petition for final disposal.;


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