-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2745 OF 2008 Mrs.Kusumrani P. Agarwal, wife of Mr.Purshottam K. Agarwal, residing at 302, Meridian Apartment, 3, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai--400 058. : Petitioner V/s. 1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Shri R.K.Sabharwal, Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai Main Office, Central Bank of India Building, M.G. Road, Mumbai--400 023. : Respondents ... Mr.M.J. Nedumpara for the petitioner. Mrs.Usha Srivastava i/b. Consulta Juris for resp. no.2. ... -: 2 :- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. Date of Reserving ) : 3.12.2008 the Judgement. ) Date of Pronouncing) : 18.12.2008 the Judgement. ) JUDGEMENT (Per S.A.Bobde,J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.7.2008 issued by Central Bank of India under section 13(2) of the Secularisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the "Securitisation Act". 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of flat no.302, Meridian Apartment, 3, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai--400 058, which according to the respondent no.2, is mortgaged to Central Bank of India as security for a loan of Rs.135.75 lakhs due as on 17.4.2006. According to the petitioner, she has at no stage mortgaged the property towards the loan and she ought to have been offered an opportunity by the respondent no.2 to demonstrate this fact before issuing the notice under section 13(2) in compliance with the rule of audi alteram partem. 3. The petitioner has also prayed, inter alia, for a declaration of certain sub-sections of section 13 and -: 3 :- section 14 as unconstitutional. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the notice under section 13(2) is void because it was not preceded by a hearing to the petitioner wherein she could have pointed out that the flat is not mortgaged to the Bank. There is no merit in this contention since section 13 does not require the secured creditor to hear the borrower before taking an action. In fact, the provisions contemplate the issue of a notice in writing to the borrower to discharge his liabilities in full within 60 days from the date of notice, failing which the secured creditor becomes entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4), which includes the right to take possession of the assets, management of the business of the borrower, etc. Section 17 provides a appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal by any person, including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13. The law thus contemplates a hearing and inquiry into the matter by way of an appeal against the action of the Bank. Clearly, no hearing prior to the issue of the notice is contemplated. There is thus no merit in the contention that the notice is illegal. At the most, it may be stated that it is necessary for the secured creditor to communicate reasons to the borrower for not accepting the objections raised in reply to the notice under section 13(2) of the Act which, of course, -: 4 :- the borrower is not entitled to challenge, vide Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate how the provisions of the Securitisation Act are violative of the constitution, in any way. It may be noticed that the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act has been repelled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals (supra), except as regards section 17, sub-section (2), which requires pre-deposit. 5. In the result, there is no merit in the Writ Petition which is hereby dismissed. We direct that the respondents shall take formal possession of the flat. All questions shall be kept open in any proceedings which the petitioner may choose to take. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.A. BOBDE, J.