wp3237.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3237 OF 2009 M/s. Chetan Trading Company, Through its Proprietor, Mr. Gangaprasad Chandusa Satpute, Age-60 years, Occu: Business, R/o-Ganesh Peth, Basmat Nagar, Dist-Hingoli. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) State Bank of India, Through its Authorized Signatory, Chief Manager [CSC], Basmat Nagar Branch, "Dhanusmruti", Mondha, Basmatnagar- 431 512, 2) State Bank of India, Through its Authorized Signatory, Chief Manager [CSC], Regional Business Office, Region-1, New Mondha, Nanded- 431 602. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.Sudhir Bhalerao Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.P.B. Paithankar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ... wp3237.09 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is a borrower of Respondent State Bank of India. It is the contention of the Petitioner that in response to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, reply/objection was filed by the Petitioner to the Respondent Bank, but the Respondent Bank did not consider the objection raised by the Petitioner. It is alleged that by communication dated 15th May, 2009, which is impugned herein, the Respondent Bank resorted to take action under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement wp3237.09 3 of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. The Respondent Bank filed affidavit in reply and refuted all the allegations made in the Petition. We have perused the same. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that the reply/objection filed by the Petitioner, copy of which is annexed to the Petition, to the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, shall be considered by the Respondent Bank as an objection raised by the Petitioner afresh and reply should be given in accordance with law, by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner. If the Respondent Bank follows the procedure as stipulated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Respondent Bank thereafter would be entitled to take wp3237.09 4 appropriate steps in accordance with law. 5. In this view of the matter and without entering into the merits of the claims of the contesting parties, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15th May, 2009. The Respondent Bank is entitled to consider the objections raised by the Petitioner afresh and communicate reply to the Petitioner, in accordance with law. The Respondent Bank would be entitled, thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above, with no order as to the costs. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/DEC10/wp3237.09