Sanjib Banerjee and Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, JJ. - (1.) This is an utterly unmeritorious appeal. True to Indian style, the appellants have taken money from the bank and, like the devil, cite the scriptures when the time for repayment arrives.
(2.) The appellants candidly admit that they have used a land described as "sali" in the State's revenue records as commercial land by paying revenue at commercial rates therefor. However, they contend that since the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it will fall within the exemption under Section 31 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(3.) The writ petition was instituted challenging a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act. It is now judicially recognised that there is hardly a remedy available, in view of the scheme of the said Act of 2002, to a noticee in receipt of such notice qua the notice. Indeed, the proposed steps to be taken by the bank cannot be interdicted at such stage. The usual rules for challenging a show-cause notice would apply: the notice may only be assailed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction or it must be demonstrated that the notice is ex facie absurd.;