- (1.) By presenting this writ petition dated March 23, 2015, the petitioners have prayed for, inter alia, the following relief: "In the above background, Your Petitioners most humbly pray before this Hon'ble Court for the following reliefs: a) A Writ of Certiorari quashing and/or setting aside the Restructuring made by the Respondent Bank in May, 2012 dehors the banking norms stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India vide its Master Circular being Prudential norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances dated July 02, 2012 and General Guidelines on Sick Micro and Small Enterprises dated November 1, 2012. b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent bank, their men, agents and assigns: - i. To act in accordance with law; ii. To forthwith rescind and/or withdraw and/or cancel the Restructuring dated May 11, 2013; c) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue declaring that the respondent's conduct of reporting the Petitioner Company's account as 'Sub -Standard' to CIBIL database while maintaining in their own books as 'Standard' and restructuring the same dehors the RBI Master Circular dated July 2, 2012 and General Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Micro and Small Enterprises dated November 01, 2012 is malafide, illegal, null and void. d) A Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to act in all fairness and consider the accounts of the Petitioner Company as on 30.09.2011 (sic 2012) i.e. as on the cutoff date considered in the application for restructuring."
(2.) It is not in dispute that close on the heels of presentation of this writ petition, the respondent bank issued demand notice under section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act) dated March 30, 2015 claiming Rs.50,81,38,779.00 from the petitioners. Similar demand notice was issued to the guarantors.
(3.) Based on such demand notice, Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the respondent bank has objected to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent bank in taking recourse to section 13(2) of the Act, they ought to respond to such notice and allow the respondent bank to deal with the objection/representation before further action is taken in terms of the other provisions of the Act.;