Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was served with a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by the respondent Bank. Representation dated 19th March, 2012 followed at his instance. Soon thereafter, another representation was submitted by the petitioner on 30th April, 2012. These were issued by him exercising the right granted by Section 13(3A) of the Act. It is claimed in the writ petition that without considering and disposing of the said representations, the Bank issued a notice conveying to the general public that it had taken possession of the secured asset.
(2.) THIS writ petition was presented on 21st August, 2012 raising the grievance that without disposing of the representations, possession could not be taken. It was first heard on 3rd September, 2012. Mr. Jha, learned Advocate appearing for the Bank sought for time to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner's representations were disposed of or not. Considering his prayer, hearing of this writ petition was adjourned till 10th September, 2012. Limited interim order was passed protecting the petitioner's possession in respect of the mortgaged property. An affidavit -in -opposition was filed on behalf of the Bank on 13th September, 2012 annexing thereto a copy of the response of the Bank dated 7th May, 2012. Since in course of hearing learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the response of the Bank, this Court had made an order to the effect that on the ground of overcharging of interest, the Bank should not be restrained from taking further action. This order was passed considering the decision of the Supreme Court : III (2010) BC 694 (SC) : VI (2010) SLT 26 : AIR 2010 SC 2980 (Indian Bank v. Mis. Blue Jaggers Estate Ltd. & Ors.). Hearing was adjourned till 20th September, 2012 allowing the petitioner the liberty to offer terms of a onetime settlement to the Bank.
(3.) TODAY , when the writ petition is taken up for consideration, Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate representing the petitioner produces before the Court the envelope that he claims contained the response of the Bank dated 7th May, 2012. It appears therefrom that the said response was despatched on 5th September, 2012 and received by the post office concerned, which was to deliver the envelope to the petitioner, on 17th September, 2012.;