^ - F?n""^^ ^':^^"" ,\4\^) C^t^_ ($> \\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. L?39^/ 2011 In the matter of: PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^' Smt. Sharda Devi Agrawal, W/o Shri Ram Lal Agrawal, Aged QboutS^years, R/oR.L.House,<A^ Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 1. The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India/ Mahavir Gaushala/ First Floor, K.K, Road, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. ^ Union Bank of India, Through its Chief General Manager, Mahavir Gaushala, First Fioor, K.K, Road, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. "-" The District Collector, District- Dhamtan, Chhattisgarh 4. * M/s Vinod Traders/ Through its Partners, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ^:^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETmONER RESPQNDENTS HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT RETITION (0 No.4394 OF 2011 Smt, Sharda Devi AgrawaS Versus The Authorised OfBcer & <^he^ Present:- (Writ Petition under Articie 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K.Agnihotoi, J. Shri Ankit Singhat, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriAbhijit C. Thakur, Advocate for the nespondent Bank. ORDER (Passed on this 27tn day of September, 2011) 1. gy this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceeding initiated ynder Section 14 of the S^?uritisation and ReconstruGtion of Ftrianci@l Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "f?e Act, 2002'), initiated by the respondent No.3 and further a direction to the respondent NoJ toissue a fresh demand notice underSeN^taon 13(2) of the Act, 2002, affording proper opportunity of hearing. 2, The facts, in brief, as proj^ted by the petrtioner is that the petitjoner was a guarahtor to the loan of Rs.30,00,000/" (Rs. Thirty Lalchs only) advanced to the respondent No.4 from the respondent No.2/ Ba^ik. For default in making the payment, a noticedated 07.12.2010, calling upon the respondent No.4 and guarantorfor repaynnBnt ©fthe lo@n, under Section 13(2) readwith Section 13(3) of ttie Act,2002wasissued. The petitsoner submitted its representation under SeGticwri 13(3A) of the Act, 2002 on 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, a seoond demand notice was issued on 24.02.2011 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner, and thereafter, the respondent No.4 also submitted a detailed represeritatJon/obJeGtion in 30.04.2011 under Section 13(3A) of the Aot, 2002. 3. It appears that after action was taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, the matter was taken to the Distrirf '-^ ^'t ^ •'•^1 -y ashoK Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of asset under Section 14 ofthe Act, 2002. 4. Once the action under Section 13(^ is taken after considering the repf^^ntatjon./ objwtion filed by the debtor as well as gi^arantor, the f same should not be considered by this Court and as such, no dipection to issue a fresh demand notice under Section 13(2) can be passed. It is not dear from the pteadsngs or frpm the argunients of the petitioner asto whether any appeal against the action taken under Section 13(^ oflhe Act, 2002, was preferred under Section 17 of the Aet, 2002, before the Debt Reoovery TribunaJ i.e»the appellate authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that during pendencyof the petjtion, the order under Section 14 has been p^ssed. Thus, this petition has b^ome infruotuous, 6. This Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ancrther1 held as under;: "5. The pro^stons of Sectton 14 of the Act, 2002 is akln to execuSon of a decFee under the prowstons of ffie Cocte of Ciw? P/wec?yna, 1908and, as suGh.the DisWct Magisto-ate cannot alter or airwnd ff)e orcfer pa^ed under Sectson 13(4) of the Act, 2002 except to take ; possessfon and forwafd such assets to the seeurwi oredtor. 6. Though there is no contemplatson of any notice to other company, as ttse orcferwas passed under Secffo/? 13(4), after cons/cfeffng t/ie rep/y of ff»e bawwer ; company under SecSon 13(3A) of e Act, 2002, however, since ffie notice has been i^ued, !t is [ excepted that the Dss^iat Magisirate shail ^roceed ft> examine the case in accordance wifft Vhe provistons of Sectlon 14 of the Act, 2002, and pas^ an s^propriate ofderin sts tetterandspSrif. 7. There is no challenge to the order passed under Section 14 of the Act, 2002, in this case and as such, this pefrtion has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- \, S^shK:Afl"-*10tri Judge ' W.P.(C) No.4254 of 201 1, dedded on 3'" August, 2011