(1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5013, 9658, 11089, 11267, 11268, 15566, 17465 of 2003 and Special Leave Petition @ C.C. No. 10728 and S.L.P. (C) No. 6723 of 2003.
(2.) By means of the above noted bunch of cases some of those having transferred to this Court, the validity of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (LIV of 2002) (for short 'the Act') has been challenged. Some writ petitions were filed in different High Courts on promulgation of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second Ordinance), 2002. However, the Act 54 of 2002 was enacted and enforced, vires of which is in question, more particularly, the provisions as contained in Secs. 13, 15, 17 and 34 of the Act. Besides others, we may, for the sake of convenience, refer to the averments made and documents filed in Transferred Case Nos. 92-95 of 2002-M/s. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
(3.) It appears that a notice dated July 24, 2002 was issued to the petitioner - Mardia Chemicals Ltd. by the Industrial Development Bank of India (for short 'the I.D.B.I.') under Sec. 13 of the Ordinance then in force, requiring it to pay the amount of arrears indicated in the notice within 60 days, failing which the I.D.B.I, as a secured creditor would be entitled to enforce the security interest without intervention of the Court or Tribunal, taking recourse to all or any of the measures contained in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 13 namely, by taking over possession and/or management of the secured assets. The petitioner was also required not to transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise, any of the secured assets. Similar notices were issued by other financial institutions and banks under the provisions of Sec. 13 of Ordinance/Act to different parties who filed petitions in different High Courts.