TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained a term loan facility from the Bank of India (in short, the bank) to the extent of Rs. 13.10 lacs in the month of March, 2013 under CGTMSE scheme framed and formulated by the Central Government, for purchasing a bus for passenger transport business. Upon purchasing the vehicle and upon obtaining the stage carriage permit, the petitioner was making payment of the loan amount. Surprisingly, bank authorities issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 24th August, 2016 to which the petitioner replied on 20th September, 2017 stating inter alia that there were errors in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. On consideration of such representation the bank issued a memo dated 4th October, 2017 and a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on the said date itself. The petitioner replied to the same on 20th November, 2017 but the said reply was not considered by the bank and no decision was communicated. As the insurance policy of the vehicle was due to expire with effect from 11th April 2017, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10th April, 2018 to the respondent no.4 requesting him to validate the insurance policy. Without considering such representation, the bank authorities through their recovery agents forcibly seized the vehicle on 11th April, 2018.
(2.) Mr. Samanta submits that the bank authorities neither followed the procedure prescribed under the SARFAESI Act nor did hand over the hypothecation agreement to the petitioner. They have taken over possession of the vehicle in a manner not recognized by law and as such appropriate direction needs to be issued for immediate release of the vehicle. In support of such contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in [Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi] reported in (2012) 1 C Cr LR (SC) 139 and in [ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakkash Kaur and Ors.] reported in (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 711 .
(3.) Per contra Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that there was an error in the first 13(2) notice and the same was rectified and the petitioner's representation was duly considered. As the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount the authorities were constrained to seize the vehicle invoking the provisions of the hypothecation agreement.;