- (1.) The petitioners in this WP under art.226 are questioning a notice dated November 3, 2011 (art p.50) issued by the authorised officer of State Bank of India under s.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) Mr Chatterjee appearing for the petitioners submits that unfortunately everything necessary for deciding the real issue involved in the case was not stated in the WP. He finds little to say in reply to the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the bank that questioning the s.13(2) notice the petitioners could not approach the High Court under art.226.
(3.) In my opinion, the s.13(2) notice only demanding payment and giving the petitioners opportunity of submitting objection or representation could not give them any cause of action for approaching the High Court under art.226. The cause of action, if any, would have arisen only after the authorised officer of the bank took measures under s.13(4) of the Act. In that case the petitioners would have been entitled to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under s.17 of the Act.;