1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4396 OF 2009 The Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kannad, District Aurangabad through its Director, Krishna s/o Pundlikrao Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Fort, Mumbai through its Managing Director .. Respondent Shri A.L.Tikle, Advocate for petitioner Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for respondent CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 13h July 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed on 10.7.2009 and was circulated before us on the same day. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner we had directed that this petition be listed for admission today giving liberty to the petitioner to serve the respondent by private service. Accordingly, the respondent has been served and has filed its affidavit-in-reply. 2. The relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition is for quashing letter dated 2.7.2009 issued by the respondent-Bank indicating 2 that the possession of the sugar factory would be taken by them today at 12.30 noon. In fact, this petition had been heard by us prior to the scheduled time i.e 12.30 noon stated in the said letter. The petitioner also prays for a writ of prohibition directing the respondent-Bank from taking recourse to the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the rules framed thereunder. 3. According to the petitioner, a notice came to be issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 21.10.2008 calling upon the petitioner to liquidate the entire outstanding which was of Rs.80 Crores as per the said notice. According to the petitioner during the interregnum i.e receipt of notice and till today, petitioner has paid Rs.28 Crores. The petitioner is hopeful of liquidating of some amount in order to reduce the figure of outstanding amount by Rs.7 Crores. The fact remains, there is a huge outstanding amount standing in the account of the petitioner which has not been paid nor any arrangement is made for payment immediately. The petitioner is also not possessed of enough funds so as to pay the outstanding amount. 4. According to the petitioner the petitioner has submitted a representation on 18.12.2008 which the respondent has not decided. In the said representation, the petitioner has given a sort of a scheme by 3 which the amount outstanding in the account of the petitioner can be liquidated by the petitioner i.e sale of certain personal assets of the petitioner and its Directors. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that since the representation of the petitioner has not been decided and as per the mandate of Section 13(3) of the Act unless the representations are decided the matter cannot be proceeded further for measures to be taken by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in “ Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others”, 2004 (4) SCC 311 particularly on the observations of the Supreme Court at paragraph 45. According to us, failure to communicate the reasons or failure to decide the objection or representation does not confer any legally enforceable right on the petitioner to approach this Court for seeking writ of mandamus or writ of prohibition for prohibiting the respondent from proceeding further. In fact, proviso to Section 13(3-A) of the Act clearly states that the reasons, if communicated to the borrowers would not entitle him to file an application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 or the Court of District Judge under Section 17-A. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the measures resorted to by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing appeal. We may, however, indicate the Bank that action of the petitioner in challenging the measures resorted to by the Bank would not come in the 4 way of respondent-Bank in deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner which according to the petitioner is in the interest of the Bank in recovering the amount. 6. With the aforesaid observation, we dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/4396.09wp