- (1.) THE pr.esent petition has been preferred mainly against a notice issued by respondents -Bank under Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the notice issued by respondents -Bank under Section 13(3) and Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 are illegal, null and void and respondents Bank is deliberately not giving any account of the amount paid by the petitioner to respondents -Bank and what is actually due amount to be recovered from the potitioner, despite a clear stand taken in paragraph -11 of a reply of the notice, which is at Annexure -2 to the memo of the present compilation. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is aware of the efficacious alternative remedy, but, looking to the notice of respondents -Bank, the petitioner may not be dispossessed, forcefully from the premises in question because the petitioner is a running concern and he has already paid Rs. 45,13,702/ - against a loan of principal amount of Rs. 60,00,000/ - and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay legally payable amount to the respondents -Bank and, therefore, looking to Section 17 of the Act, 2002, let stay already granted by this Court to continue to be operative for some period so that an Appeal can be preferred under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 alongwith a stay application and further proper care may be taken under the Act, 2002. I have heard learned counsel for respondents -Bank who has vehemently submitted that the petition is not tenable at law as an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act. 2002 is available with the petitioner. Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 9th August, 2008, thereafter notice under Section 13(3) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 19th August, 2008 and lastly notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 10th September, 2008 tor taking over possession of the premises in question, which was mortgaged to respondents -Bank as a security. So far as the dispute of giving the account is concerned, as and when the Appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same can be given before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Otherwise also, respondents -Bank has already instituted Original Application No. 24 of 2008 (as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, against the petitioner wherein also, all facts have been stated, in detail, about the accounts. Nonetheless, respondents -Bank shall give all detailed calculation about the legally payable amount by the petitioner to respondents -Bank. Thus, this Court may not entertain this writ petition in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that respondents -Bank has already given notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 on 9th August, 2008, likewise notice under Section 13(3) of the Act, 2002 was given on 19th August, 2008 and lastly a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 was also given on 10th September, 2008 and looking to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002, an Appeal is tenable against such an action of the respondents -Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Thus, an efficacious alternative remedy is available with the petitioner.;