PETITIO^NER Vs &<•: RESPONbENTS ^^^c;p -...v3 -'!>•••' CIN HI6H COURT OF GHHATTIS6ARM AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c) No.^^l1 ^OF 2011 SlngtoBwch Anil Kumar Agarwal, son of Shri Radhe Shyam Agarwal, aged 42 years, Proprietor of M/s Shyam Rice & Parboiling Unit, Nevra, District Raipur. I.C.I.C.I. Bank, a banking company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the law and a bank within its meaning under the Banking Regulation Act carrying on the business of banking all over the India, having its office RNA6, Khajrani, Malav Parisar, A.V. Road, Indore (M.P.) and a branch office at Civil Lines, Raipur (C6). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE Z26/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1, PRTICULARS OF PETITIONERL- As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF RESPONbENTS: - As mentioned in the cause title. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORbER A6AINST WHICH THE PRESENTPETITION IS MA&E:- By the present petition the petitioner seeks to impugn and challenge the action of ther respondent bank in reissuing the riotice under Section 13 (2) of the /^" ;"H^!E- ^ HTGH COIJRT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BIIA8PUR /\F/? WRH' PETITION (0 No. 2384 of2011 RE.SPONDENTS Anil Kianar Agrawal. VT;RSUS I.C.LC.I. Bank. PETITIONU>®ERAR71CLE 226/227 OF THE CONS'mTU'ION OF INDIA Preserrt: Shri Kshitii Sharma. Advocate t'or the netitioner. (Passe-d on 17m da:/ ot'October, 2011) Bv this oetitioa. the Detitioner seeks aua.shhie the entire oroceedins recommenced bv tfae resDondent bv sendine another notice 07.01.2011 CAjmexiire. P./3) under sectioH 13-'2'i of the Seciirrtisation and Recoastniction of FinaDcial Assets aad Eiiforcement of Seciiritv Interest A.ct.. 2002 (for short 'the Act 'V Leamed coiuisei aooeariae for the Detitiouer submits tfae oetitioner ivailed varioii.s loaiis and credit facilities from the respoadent Since there were eertam defaults in na.vment of loan instalhnents as per the terms a.ere.ed, the respondent baak is.sued notice nader section 13(2) ofthe Act, 200:2 on 21,03.2009, which wa.s reolied on 05,05.2009 but the same was denied to be a.ccenfed bv Ifae resoondent ba.ck. The resoondent. Bank. therea.fter. proceeded under section 14 ofthe Act 2002 wMch was cfaalleiieed bv tho petitioner befbre ttas Court in W.P/C^ No. 5040/2009. the said petition was allowed direeting tfae respondent bank to decide the obiectioa filed bv the oet.itioner within a oeriod of 10 aavs and r.ass soeakins.and reasoned order and coinmumcate the sa.me to the -. ;..-A!-. f t-^" pefitioner. However, fhe respondent-bank has issued another notice imder seetion 13(2) ofthe Act, 2002 oa 07.01.2011 (Annexiire P/3). The petitioner replied to the said notice on 25.02.2011 (Amiexiire P/4) takine various objections regarding maintainabilily etc. Shri Sharma fiirther subinits that the respondent-Bank has fiirther issued a comeendum letter dated 04.02.2011 fAnnexi»re P/5) to rectifv the uregiilarities in the eariier notiee dated 07.01.2011 issuedunder section 13(2) ofthe Act, 2002. Sfari Sharma, leamed coimse! appearine for tiie petitioner submits thatthe comgendum lefterdated 04.02.2011 is withoutjurisdiction aad in view of that. the earlier notice dated 07.01.2011 issued under the nrovisions ofsection 13(2) ofthe Act, 2002 be aitashed. Shri Sharma fiirther submits that the entire proceedings, as tfae same ha.s not been done in accordance witfa tfae provisions ofthe Act, 2002, also deserve to be quashed. Be that as it may, no steps can be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 2002 without affording proper opporhinity ofhearine, a.s section 13 prescribes steps befbre takint possession ofthe seciired assets under sub section (4) ofsection 13 of fhe Act, 2002 and if the steps have been taken uader section 13(4) ofthe Act, 2002, after coasidering the reply ofthe bon-ower to the aotice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002, an appeal is manitainabto before the Debt Recoven/ Tribunal under section 17 ofthe Act, 2002. The initial notice dated 07,01.2011 was respoaded to by the petitioner afier the corrieendum letter wa.s issued on 04.02.2011. Tfatis, at the most, it can be held that the limitttion orescribed &^~ \^- \^';^^, •tl..'.'ff',. •Ki'^^.it'; ••€,„^.-»?,„? c-'.' uader section 13(2) ofthe Aet, 2002 would be eomprted fromthe date. the corrieendum letter was issued and not from the date fhe first. notice under section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued on 07.01.2011. Thus, the proceedines cannot be quashed onlhe above stated groimds as pleaded by the leamed counsel fbr the petitioner. Since the stAge oftaking action uader section 13(4) of-the Acfc 2002 has not come, the instant petition is not maiHtamable. If any action is takea afi.er consid«rina the replv of the petitioner as according to leamed counsel for the petitioner, the reply has been filed, the petifioner, therea.&er, may approa.ch the appeUate a.nthority as provided imder section 17 ofthe Act, 2002. 6. Thus, this petition bdng prematiire at this stage, is dismissed. SdA sa^K.Agn,l.o^ Judge Armt^-