CW 10121/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10121/07 Shri Krishna Swarup Mathur Versus Bank of Baroda DATE OF ORDER : 30/06/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Rajeev Surana, for petitioner Mr. R.K. Salecha, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed against draft of notice to a guarantor-petitioner [Ann.2] under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 [“Act, 2002”]. Petitioner has challenged notice on various grounds served upon him under the Act, 2002. Respondent-Bank filed its reply to the writ petition and in Para 3.1 it has been specifically averred that without prejudice to their rights and contentions to recover dues from the petitioner in terms of judgment & decree passed by ADJ No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, since petitioner has not created any security interest on his assests in favour of respondent-Bank, in such circumstances, the Bank is not inclined to CW 10121/07 [2] take any measures against the petitioner under the Act, 2002. Para 3.1 of reply, which is relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereunder: “The Respondent Bank also states that the powers under provisions of Securitization Act, 2002 to enforce security interest are exercisable by the Bank and financial institutions in respect of the “Secured Assets” and the Respondent Bank, without prejudice its rights and contentions to recover the dues from the petitioner under the judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble ADJ No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur [Annexure-R/2] under the provisions contained in Order 21 of CPC 1908, states that the petitioner has not created security interest on his assets in favour of the Respondent Bank and hence the Respondent Bank is not inclined to take measures under Securitization Act, 2002 against the petitioner, nevertheless, the Demand Notice i.e. Annexure-2 was sent by way of demand relating to outstanding dues.” In view of specific averment made by respondent-Bank that they are not initiating action against the petitioner in reference to demand notice impugned dt.3/11/07 [Ann.2] served upon him under the Act, 2002. The instant petition has become infructuous and accordingly, disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA10121CW07 30-6.doc