1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.575 OF 2007 Smt.Malan Indrajeet Markad .. Petitioner. vs. The Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Shivajirao Masal for the petitioner CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE: 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner has sought a declaration that the respondents having failed to comply with the provisions under section 13(3)(a) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, they are not entitled to initiate any proceedings u.s.13(4) of the Securitization Act, and therefore, they should restrain the respondents by an order of injunction from taking possession of the petitioner’s flat bearing no.202, 2nd Floor, Sai Dham, Koparkhairane, Gaonthan, Navi Mumbai 2 and for ancillary reliefs such as interim and ad-interim stay and so on. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had applied for a loan from respondent no.1 for housing and against the same by way of security executed a deed of mortgage of flat bearing no.202, 2nd Floor, Sai Dham, Koparkhairane, Gaonthan, Navi Mumbai. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that till the petitioner’s husband was working in the police department, she has regularly paid instalments but from 2002 as he was not working in the police department, she was not in a position to pay instalment, therefore, the petitioner offered to settle the loan account to the respondent Corporation by resorting to one time settlement but they failed to act on it. On the other hand, respondent no.2 issued a notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization Act which according to the petitioner is not proper being vague and baseless. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did reply the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization Act and on receipt of the said 3 notice, it is mandatory on the part of the secured creditor to consider objections raised by the petitioner. Having failed to do so, the respondent Corporation are not entitled under the law to initiate any proceedings under the said Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of this court in the case of M.R.Gavai M.R.Gavai M.R.Gavai Enterprises vs. Vidharbha Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Enterprises vs. Vidharbha Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Enterprises vs. Vidharbha Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. reported in 2005 (1) Bom C.R. 276 reported in 2005 (1) Bom C.R. 276 reported in 2005 (1) Bom C.R. 276 and therefore, this petition. 6. We have gone through the notice issued by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act and the so-called representation and objection raised by the petitioner. We find that the reply given by the petitioner to the notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization Act refers to the various authorities of this court on the issue and the controversies raised in the matter like furnishing to the petitioner the accounts and so on and further, the very authority of the officer issuing notice is challenged. Not only this, even the petitioner has called upon the respondent to produce the certificate 4 of officers of the financial institution under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as a financial institution. 7. In our view, such reply do not require any consideration under the law so as to create a right in favour of the petitioner in frustrating the proceedings initiated by the respondent in recovering the loan. We may also mention that the petitioner even went to the extent of citing the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India reported Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India reported Mardia Chemicals Limited v. Union of India reported in 2004(4) Bom. C.R. (S.C.) 530 in 2004(4) Bom. C.R. (S.C.) 530 in 2004(4) Bom. C.R. (S.C.) 530 in support of her case. Therefore, we find that the petition has no merits. The same is dismissed, no order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.) (S.J. Kathawalla, J.)