GOPINATH PAUL Vs. UCO BANK & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated December 23, 2010 is questioning two notices dated April 16, 2007 and January 12, 2008 (at pp.45 and 54 respectively) issued under s.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and two notices dated November 12, 2009 and October 06, 2010 (at pp.56 and 57 respectively) issued by the District Magistrate in connection with proceedings initiated under s.14 of the Act.

(2.) Counsel submits that wrongfully amalgamating two loans the authorised officer of the bank wherefrom the petitioner borrowed some money issued the s.13(2) notices. His further submission is that when the petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate refused to accept any application from the petitioner and also to supply the petitioner the certified copy of the order under s.14. His further submission is that without disposing of the petitioner s representation to the s.13(2) notices the authorised officer of the bank took steps under s.14 of the Act.

(3.) I do not find any reason to interfere with the s.13(2) notices dated April 16, 2007 and January 12, 2008. If the bank took steps under s.14 even before the authorised officer disposed of the petitioner s representations to the s.13(2) notices, then the petitioner s remedy, if any, was under s.17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If the District Magistrate made wrong orders under s.14, then also in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Anr.,2010 2 CLJ 280 his remedy was an appeal under s.17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.