- (1.) : Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the dismissal of its writ petition bearing No. W.P. (C) No. 5184 of 2009 by the order dated 29.03.2011. The petitioner -appellant's contention is that the respondent -Bank has initiated action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2002 ), has not determined the liability of the writ petitioner -appellant and nor has followed the procedure under Section 14 thereof and, therefore, the respondent -Bank's taking over possession of petitioner's unit cannot be recognized in view of the violation of the procedure under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. It has also been submitted that at the time of filing of writ petition, the respondent -Bank even did not apply before Debt Recovery Tribunal much less to determination of liability of the petitioner by DRT and subsequent application of the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is of no relevance. It is also contended that the petitioner also submitted objection to the declaration of his account as N.P.A but that has not been considered and rejected by the Bank. Therefore, the Bank could not have proceeded under the Act of 2002 under Section 13 and 14 to take possession of the petitioner's property. 2009 (3) JLJR 448 and submitted in the said judgment, Division Bench of this Court has held that, unless the liability is determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, proceedings under the Act of 2002 cannot be initiated.
(3.) We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case.;