CW 3376/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3376/2010 M/s. Satya Narayan & Sons Versus The Bank of India & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 12/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Ajay Tyagi, for petitioner *** Petitioner, who is a principal debtor, applied for term loan of Rs.72 lacs and the same was granted to him. But, after his loan account was declared to be NPA on 5th November, 2009, a notice u/s.13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was served upon the petitioner on 1st December, 2009 [Ann.7] disclosing their outstanding dues in their NPA account. At the same time, notice was also issued to guarantor as well on 1st December, 2009 [Ann.8]. After notice was served, the petitioner submitted reply in pursuance of notice as provided u/s.13(3-A) of the Act and after expiry of statutory period, the respondent under statute has proceeded since was not satisfied with the explanation furnished u/s.13(4) of the Act and at this stage, if the petitioner was aggrieved will certainly have a liberty to prefer statutory appeal provided u/s.17 of the Act, 2002. CW 3376/2010 [2] Counsel for petitioner submits that very decision taken by respondents in holding its account to be NPA on 5th November, 2009, is not in accordance with RBI guidelines and this fact was specified in the reply to their notice u/s.13(2) of the Act and in such circumstances, further action being taken by the respondents u/s.13(4) will deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right and will also be in violation of provisions of the Act, 2002. In opinion of this Court, submission made by Counsel cannot be considered at this stage for the reason that after written statement was submitted u/s.13(3-A) of the Act, it is for the financial institution to take decision in examining the objections made and if authority takes decision after expiry of statutory period to proceed u/s.13(4) of the Act that certainly provides remedy of statutory appeal to the petitioner u/s.17 of the Act. In view of a mechanism which has provided under the Act, 2002, it will not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in exercise of equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail remedy available under law. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA3376CW2010 12-03.doc