Civil Writ Petition No.2073 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2073 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.11.2011 M/s Tara Mandal Minks Pvt. Ltd. and others ...Petitioners Versus Indian Overseas Bank and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harminderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate for the respondents. **** HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notice dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) served under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the notice dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure P-35) served under Section 13(4) of the Act as also sale notice (Annexure P-37). The petitioner company has availed term loan and working capital facilities earlier from the Punjab National Bank, Mehatpur, District Una. Since the company was having problem in foreign currency transaction with the said Bank, the loan were taken over by the respondent bank at the instance of the petitioner vide communication dated November 17,2007. The petitioner failed to comply with the repayment schedule which led to issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 3.12.2008. The Civil Writ Petition No.2073 of 2011 -2- **** petitioner submitted proposal for restructuring the loan amount. After numerous communications, restructuring proposal was declined on 30.8.2010 (Annexure P-28). Thereafter, petitioner was served with a notice on 10.9.2011 (Annexure P-30). The said notice reads as under:- “On your request our Amritsar Main Branch has sanctioned various credit facilities to you on specified terms and conditions of sanction. We are constrained to say that you have violated the stipulated norms and terms and conditions of sanction as a result the account was classified as NPA w.e.f. 30.6.2008. You have neither conducted the account in a satisfactory manner nor utilized the fund for activities for which was sanctioned to you. Despite our repeated reminder, personal contacts, notices sent to you including SARFAESI notice issued on 3.12.2008 you have not come forward to liquidate the liabilities and obligation towards the Bank. Your detrimental act of default has caused huge loss to Bank. As such we have decided to classify the account under willful defaulter category as per RBI norms. However, we are allowing you 15 days time to file any objection or representation against our decision, as to why we should not declare your account under willful defaulter list of RBI giving a valid reason thereof.” After the said notice, the petitioner again submitted restructuring proposal vide communication dated 15.9.2010 (Annexure P- 31) but the said request was again declined on 17.9.2010 (Annexure P-32). The petitioner was informed that the Bank is unable to consider the Civil Writ Petition No.2073 of 2011 -3- **** request for restructure of the credit facilities and shall not entertain any future correspondence. Again petitioner submitted restructuring proposals on 24.9.2010 and 14.10.2010 but the respondents published a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on 18.10.2010. Thereafter, notice of sale was also published on 23.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that after the notice under Section 13(2) was issued, respondents could not proceed with the serving of notice under Section 13(4) of the Act keeping in view the restructure proposal submitted by the petitioner. It is contended that restructuring proposal of the petitioner has not been dealt with fairly as Techno Economic Viability Report has not been considered in proper perspective. We have heard learned counsel for the parties but find that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the Act. After notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 3.12.2008, the petitioner came out with restructuring proposal. Such restructuring proposal was declined and communication addressed on 10.9.2010 (Annexure P-30) that petitioner should reply to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Again petitioner submitted restructuring proposal but it did not find favour with the Bank. Thereafter, Bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2371, M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India AIR 2007 Supreme Court 172 and Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3413, the remedy of the petitioner is provided under Section 17 of Act. Civil Writ Petition No.2073 of 2011 -4- **** In view of the above facts, we do not find any ground to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963, which shall be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE November 7, 2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE