\ . \. ^. C^22^L- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHATTISGARH ATBILSAPUR Writit PetitioS^No. r?/// Of 2011 \ v PETITIONER:- . ^^ ^s^ €^^ ^y^a'' -^' ^5" .'- €^-"'" %.^/- -:VERSUS:- RESPONDENT:- 1. Ind Synergy Limited, a Company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Gokulpuram, Kachna Road, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur.- Chhattisgarh- 429 007, through its Managing Director Shri Aditya s/o Satish Goel inhabitant of 6, "Ramkunj" Daga Layout, North Ambazari Road, Nagpur- 440010. 2. Shri Satish s/o Murarilal Goel, Occupation - Business, resident of House No.6, Ram Kunj', Daga Layout, Ambazari Road, Nagpur. 1. The Authorised Officer, under the Securitisation & Reconstruction Of Financial Assets, & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, of the Dena Bank, Ville Parle (East) Branch, 67, Krishna Bhawan, Nehru Road, Ville Parle East, Mumbai 400 057. 2. Dena Bank, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Dena Corporate Centre C-10, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla cb Complex, Bandra (East) 400 051. 3. The Reserve Bank of India, Chief General Manager, Department of Banking Operations, P'Demelo Road, Mumbai. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR APPROPRIATE WIRT. ORDER OR DIRECTION v HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fQ No. 31 11 of2011 Ind Synergy Limited & Another. RESPONDENTS VERSUS The Authorised Officer & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnlliotri. J. Present: Shrl Avinash Gharote, Shri Aiiimddha Kulkami and Shri Aiikit Singhal, Advocates forthe petitioners. Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondent - Dena Baiik. Sliri Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Sliri Aiiand Gupta- Advocate for the Reserve Bank ofhlndia. ORDERrORALl (Passed on 17th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. The petitioners seek reliefto the effect fhat the "Income Recognition & Asset Classification Guidelines" (for short 'the guidelines') framed by the Reser^e Bank oflndia (jbr short tthe RBI\. be quashed and set aside as the same is contrary to the provisions of section 2(o) ofthe Securitisation and Reconstmction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') aiid farther, to direct the Reserve Bank oflndia to re-frame and lay down the guidelines in coiiformity withthe said Act. Secondly, classification of the account of the petitioner No. 1 as non-perfoi'mmg asset (fbr short, the NPA'),be held as illegal. In the altemative, the petitioner has sought that the account of the petitioner as non-perfoiining asset by the respondent No. 2, be declared as illegal and contrary to fhe existing guidelines, framed by the RBI. The petitioner lurther seeks to hold that all the decisions taken pursuant to the notice under section 13(2) ofthe Act be quashed and the gi'ound that no decision has been /".r"""^: '^ / ^ " 't D VSSiS^^ H ^ss^ ^ •\ "'w""'s£g s .// ^;:cy^' ^y '^^^ Y \ taken within the prescribed time under the provisions ofsection 13(3- A) offhe Act. It is farther prayed that the respondent No. 1 be directed to decide the objections raised by the petitioner by giving reasons. 2. Indisputably, the petitioner No. 1/Company availed the credit facilities under fhe Consortium Financing & Multi Baiiking Facilities from the respondent No. 2/Bank alongwifh 12 other baiiks vjz. Bank oflndia, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Indian Overseas Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Punjab National Bank, Central Bank of Itidia, Union Baiik of India, United Bank of India, Canai'a Baiik, Dena Bank and State Bank of Travancore and Uco Bank. It is furfher averred by the petitioners that the petitioner had availed credit facilities to fhe tiine of Rs. 583,19,00,000/- from in all 13 baiiks. Due to fmancial cmnch and non-availability ofraw materials, the commercial production could not commence. However, the iiistaltments aiid interest were paid to the respondent-Banks till the fmancial year 2007-08. 3. It is further averred that without any notice- the account of the petitioner No. 1/Company was declared as non-perfomiing assets based on the guidelines issued by the RBI. 4. Slis'i Gharote, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, a notice under section 13(2) ofthe Act was issued to thc petitioner No. 1/Companyon 14.03.2011 (Annexure P/2)to discharge his full liabilities. Against the said notice, the petitioner raised an objection under section 13(3A) ofthe Act on 18.05.2011 (Amiexure P/3) which has not yet been decided and aii attempt to take possession of the property has been made without deciding the objection as required under section 13(3A) ofthe Act. -^ 5. Shi-i Shukla, leamed counsel appeaiing for the respondent Bank does not controvert the subniission made by leamed counsel for the petrtioner. 6. A similar issue came up for consideration before fliis Court in Aml Kumar Agra-wal v. ICICI Bank & Another1 wherein, this Court, Obsen^ed that section 13(3A) of the Act is a mandatoiy statutory provision which was required to be complied with. Section 13(3A) of the Act provides for a specific procedure, which cannot be permitted to be contravened. It is trite law that if a statute requires to do a process in a particular way, the same must be done in that way only. It was further directed to decide the objection ofthe petitioner within a period of ten days and pass speaking and reasoned order and conimunicate the same to the petitioner. 7. Applying the well settled prmciples of law and for the reasons stated hereinabove, respondent Bank is directed to decide the objection of the petitioner, if any, filed within a period of ten days and pass speaking and reasoned order and communicate the same to the pctitioner with. Thereafter, it would be open to the respondent Bank to proceed further m accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge ' AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 1 Ajiut