\^^- ..••' L/X -'..•^^•" ...••• ..- ,^^^ ^y' /.^' . ^-^c" „ /y Singte c^ ^ +1|Tl4l^ ^STCT •^||A||01A| ??C^1^-'I(D, f^<?1l'M^'< (^.7T.) W.P.(C)No5^&D/2011 (S.B.l ST-TT^oft ftrTT ^ft ^T. 'Hl^lcld IRTT^, STTg pFTW 39 c^, p|c)|R-)^|-cMI^ ^T. 295, ^Tt TRToT, sRfcT 'f^gR Rldl^^ f^frTT—f^KTyW07TO ............. <llRl<PIW(ff R<h<i ,/ TWTcp, tq? sff^ ?T7^3T-f^TKTy, ^t.Ift. t?IH c^f^uT c^ ^m Rp1l<ay< ^TdT-fsldl'H^ ??OTTO ............. yTCl'<qi<fl m^?r/f^e ^ifSicbi sfcTifcr gi^E^ 226/227 ^TRcf^r ^ETFT 1 —_V A^ !is^ <\ HTCrH COIJRT OF CHHATTTSGARH AT BITASPITR WBJT PETmON (C) No. 5780 of2&l1 PETmONER : Anaricali. RESPONDENT8 VER8US Manaeer. Umon Bank oflndia. WRJT PETmON LWDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTm.mON OFINDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Aenthntri, J. Present: Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. ORBKR (Passed on 27°*day of Sq)tember, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioaer seeks a direction to suspend/stay/quash the notiee datcd 30.08.2011 (Annexiire P/l) issued by the respondent imder section 13(4) ofthe Seciiritisation and Reconstniction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Seeurity Inta-est Act, 2002 (for short 'the Acf}. Furtlier, a direction to the respondent bank to give facility of repayment of loan amouat in instalhnents. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained a ioan amount of Rs; 4,50,000/- for constniction of house. However. Aie to deterioration of his fmancial condition, the petitoiner could not repay the loan amoimt / The petitioner intends to repay the loan amount alongwith interest, however, the respondent bank has issued notice imder sectiort 13(4) ofithe Act for sale ofthe property ofthe petitionw. 1 3. Shri Patel fiirtfaer submiis that earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 989/2011, which was disposed ofvide order dated 09.03.2011 (Aimeaire P/2) wherein, this Court disposed of tfae petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a renresentatioa to the respondent-Baak for making offer to pav .V substantial amoiitit bv first mstaHmeiit. Piirsuant to the said ordw, tiie petitioner made a represeiitstion on 15.03.2011 CAnnexure P/3) praying for g-anting him facility to re-pay the ioaa in instalhnents. The respondeiit-Baak, in response, asTsed the petitioner to depcsit a sum ofRs. 2.00.000/- within a period of seven davs, then onlv the respondent would consider the case of the petitioner, else, appropriate action woiild be taken under the provisions offhe Act. The petitioner made a representation on 14.06,2011 (Annexiire P/5) stating that the petitioner was willing to deposit a si-un ofRs. 25,000/- nnmediately and in fiitore, she would deposit tjie mstallments regiilarly. On pemsal of the dociiments filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the respondent-Baiik had eiven the petitioner an opportiinity to re-pay the loan amoturt on the candition that tfae petitioner was required to (teposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- which the petitioneT coul not deposit. It was also stated that ifthe petitioner could not depo.sit the said amouirt, appropriate steps under tlie provisions of the Act, would be taken. At this stage, when the action under sectioa 13 (4) ofthe Act has been taken by the respondent Bank, remedy available to the petitionere is to take recourse tothe provisions ofSeetion 17 offhe Act, 2002. The identical dispiite came up befere this Court and after heariag the parties, the same has beea decided vide order dated 22.06.2011 in Ind Svnerw Lfmited & Anether v. The Aiithorised Officer & Other^. W.P.(Q)No. 2960/2011. " ;'':'i'rt 8. In view ofthe fact that wder under Section 13(4) oftiie Aet, 2002 has been passed, the issue asto illegality in the 8?.udelines canoit be considered in the mstaut petition, leavine the miestion oflaw to be decided in an appropriate case. In Ind Synergy fsupra), this court after relying on the deeision of tiie Supreme Coiirt in Kanatyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others v. State ofMaharashtra and Ofher/, observed as under: "9. In view ofthe well settled principle oflaw Ifaatfhe efiBcacious statutory remedy ofappeal underthe provisions ofSection 17 oflfae Act, 2002 is available to the petitioneis and, as such, no mterference is warranted bv this Courl in exereise of ils power under Artiule 226/227 of&e CQnstitution oflndia." For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying Ifae watl settled principles of law to Ifae facts of the present case, it is not necessary to go into Ifae merits of the case and fhe petition is dismissed, as not maintainabte in tenns oflnd Synergy (siipra). No order asto coste. —-- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anut 2(2011)2SCC?82