^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR t^PCc)M9c^f/ W.P.CNo /2011 PETITIONERS: ^^•^3> ...--;';5\t-' '\'.\-'/ .°»>"\'<:fcv.." .^^•^' M/s Prithvi Resources through its Gurjeet Singh Garcha S/o Shri Puran Singh Garcha, aged about 45 years, R/o 31/330, Opposite Prem Kuma), Civil Lines,Raipur(C.G.). VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS: State Bank of India, through Chlrf Manager-Cum-Authorized Officer, SAM Branch, Ground Floor, L.H.O. Premises, Bhopal. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE .CONSTITUTION QF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS DIRECTIONS:- i •^^SKSSsSsS^. ,/y^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN (C)JiO,,49070F'_20n M/s. Prithvi Resources Versus RESPONDENT State Bank of India (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Shishir Ducit, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 26a day ofAugust, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petidoner seeks quashing of demand notice dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure P/l) issued by the respondent-Bank under section 13(2) ofthe Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security InterestAct, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002"). Further, a direction to the respondent-Bank to produce the entire statement of account after rescheduling/ restructuring of the account of the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner-Company obtained a loan from the respondent- Bank. The petitioner failed to make payment regularly and as such, the property of the petidoner was classified as 'Non Performing Asset' on 30.04.2008. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner made a request for restructuring and rescheduling the payment. Pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2011 under section 13(2) ofthe Act, 2002, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply which was rejected by the respondent-Bank vide order dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure P/3). 3. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner under section 13(3A) of the Act, 2002, was not considered properiy, before rejecting its reply/representation and passing the order under Section 13(3A)oftheAct,2002. 4. On perusal of the pleadings and documents annexed to the petition, it is found that the petitioner has failed to disclose several facts in detail asto when reply to the notice under ashok 7. section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was made and what has happened after rejection of his representation. This Court, in M/s. Stallion Steels Indore Pvt. Ltd. v. I.D.B.I. Bank1, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others2, dismissed the petition holding that since appeal under the provisions of section 17 of the Act, 2002 was available, no interference was warranted. The Supreme Court, in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Others2, held as under: "22. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an action under section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT. Identical issue raised in this petition also came into consideradon before this Court in Ind Synergy Limited v. The Authorised Officer & Others3, raising the same grounds. This Court, having considered the issue at length, held as under: "9. In view of the well settled principle of law that the efficacious remedy of appeal under the provisions of section 17 of the Act, 2002 is available to the pedtioners and, as such, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia" Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, and in view of the order passed in Ind Synergy Limited & Another3, the pedtion is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to alternative statutory remedy, if so advised, which inay be available to the petitioner under the provisions ofthe Act, 2002. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .'; /^ ^ ' W.P.(C) No. 2339 of 2011 decided on 03.08.201 1 2 (2011)2 SCC 782 3 W.P.(C) No. 2960 of201 1, decided on 22.06.201 1