!vy C^?<^zs -^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHAHISGARH AT BILSAPUR Writ PetitioiTKlo. ^1"l ^ of 2011 PETITIONER:- ^M '/w^ ^w^ AW .^Af/V ^/^ y^ / .fy./ ,:^? ^ / <^y -:VERSUS:- RESPONDENT: 1. Ind Synergy Limited, a Company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office ot 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, Occupotion - Business, resident of House No.6, Ram Kunj, Daga Layout, Ambazari Road, Nagpur. 1. The Authorised Officer, under the SecuritisQtion & Reconstruction Of Financial Assets, & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, of the UCO Bank Flagship Corporate Branch, 1st Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. ^- 2. UCO Bank, Head Office, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director having its office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata (West ^ Bengal). 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 \ \^ HIOH COUm' OF CHHAmSGARH AX B1LA8PUR PETmQNER WRJT PETITION (C) No. 3148 ot2QU Ind Synergy Limited & Another. RE8PQNDENTS VER8U8 rrhe AudiQri8©dOffieOT&2Othets. PEJ H1CW UNDEK. AKl'ICLE 226 READ WrTH 227 OP TH& CONSTmmON OF INDIA SB: Mon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Agirihotfft,^, Present: ft) Shri Aridt Siii^hal,, Advocate 3&%r fhe pditicttwr. Shd Axiaad Shukla, Advocate for th^ respondbnt No. 1 & 2. OWIMRfORAU (Passed oa27ul day ofJune, 2011) 1, Bytfaispc^Gm^thepetition^ssedcibllQvi?^ 10. ReUeffs^ sousfit: T^e pettticmer nwst humbly cmd respeotfully prays fw fatta^mg reliefs; That thisHcm'bb C(mrt beplea^dto isme wit m the natureofmar^amus or such other appra^iate writ, orefer or direction thsreby strik^ng down and quashing and settmg aside the itlncome Recag^iticm & As$et Ctassification Guideliiws" framed by the Respondent No.3/Reserse Bsf^ af India in purported ewrci^e ofpowcrs conferred upon it by virtue cfSection 12 of the Securitisatwn & Re€omtiftuclwno/FmwwialAs^ets & Enfbrcement Seeurity Interest Act, 2002 isi so far as they relate to olmsiftc^tlcm of accmmt as non- performmg asset, being conti'ary to thc pmwsiom of Sec.2 ft^ of Th^ SAREESIAct mdbejurthwpkased ta dircct ffw Re^f^ndent NoJ/Rese^e Bank of India t^ re- fmme and lay dami thc Gw^lmes m c<m/brmtty wth tlm provmons ofthe saidAct. This Hon'ble Court be pleaseol to hold and dcclam th^t the ckissification af t^ account of^c petitionw No.l as non-performmg ^ 2. asmt, bascd on ille^sl and contmfy guideUnes ismed by the Resjp[m^€nt NoJ and appUed by tke Respondent No.l Bank, is illegal, void-ab-inino resultantiy ati actions taksn fy the RespondentNo.l Bar^. in pursuance thereto are illegal, void-ab-initio be struck down to mc^t the ends of jusWe. ]N THEALTERNATIVE fiii) Hold that declaratian Cff^e ^ccount of the petitioner No.l as non- performing asset by the Respon^ent No.2 is illegal and contrary to wen the present ocisting ^c^yim Recognition and Asset Classytcatton Cjuidelines as framed by the RespondentNoJ. (iv) Hold th^t no deciswn hwing bew ta^n upon fhe obj^ctiam s§ raised by the peUtioner No.l to the nottee of tke Respandents 1 &2, under scction 13 (2) oftheAct.andthusthi^ebeing viotation ofthe promsiom qfSectlon 13 (3-A) qf the Act, all c^mequent actiom thereto arc illegal, fwll and void. (v) On the prayer clause (M) being grwited, direct the Respondent NoJ, to decide the objectiQns raSsed by ths PeUtioyierNo.l, bygivingreasans. fti) - During the pwdcnay of the presc^t petiUon, gmnt Stoy to fhe cffwt cmd operation cyfthe notice wicter Section 13 (2) oftheAct, andall consequent actians th^cta. (vii) Costoftheproceedings. (viti) Any otherreliefas thisHen "bls Court deemsftt cmdproper inthefai^s and circumstances ofthe case," Leamed counsel appearii^ fw the petitfoner submite t^t tfie petitioner No.l ctecided to set up Integrated Steei Plaat comprising of Sponge Iron Platrt, Steel Mett Shop, Coal Wa^hery, Captive Power Plaunt, Raitw^ Sidmg ^te. and fe>r A^ said purpose availed Ifae credit fecility from tte Banks. The re^pondent No.2 had ftmditig prior to 2004-05 to th@ petitiofBer 1 .//' •••$' 3. \' Soya/Agro Divisioii. According to fhe petiti^iens. <toe to adamant approach of tfie respondeirt No.2 Bank the in-opasal submitted by the ladiaa Overseas Bank came to be wfthdrawn on 9-2-2011. Thereafler,on 18-3-2011 (Annexure ~ P/2) Ifae respondent Bank issued notice under Sectioa 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Recoiistruction of Puiancial Assets and Enforc^nait of Seeurity Interest Act, 2002 (fw short "ttoe Act, 2002"). In response to tiie said notice, the petittoner sutemitted objection on 21-5-2011. The said objection l»sNm rejected by the respondent Bairic wd coiiimumcat^d tfae same to Ae petitioner on 27.05.2011. Thus, tiiis petition fffled by tfa® petitioner betbre tiiis Court on 17-6-2011 t@ elialleage the adjudication ofliie objection as well as tfie guidelm^ issued by the respocKlent No.S/Reserve Baadc oflndia. The respondent-Batik submite fhat uiidter Ifae povisacms of Section 13 (4) of tfae Act, 2002 read wiA the rutes fi-^ned thereuiider-, the respoiident Bank issued the passession tiotlce and copy oftibe same has already be^i su^lied to Ae petitbners. Thus, the only remedy available to tito petiticmers m to take recourse to the provisioi^ of Section 17 ofth^ AE^ 2002. Ste Shukla Jftirt}]^- submits that Itae identical dispute came up befwe this Court and after hearing tiie parties, the same-faas b^n decided vide order dated 22.06.2011 in Ind Synwgy Limitwt & Another v. The Auffiwised Officer & Others1. Tfeus, fhis petttt<$n may al^) be decided iattie terms ofIndSynergyJLtd.(supra). 'W.P.(QNo. 2960/2011. •^ 6. ^ 4 V In view ofthe tact Ifaat order undar Seetfon 13(4) offhe Aet, 2002 has.been passed, the i^ue asto illegality ia the ^iidelmes canot be considered mlhe mstatit petition, leaving the questioii of law to be decided in aa appropriate case. In Ind Synergy (supra), this court attar relying on the decision of tiie Supreme Court mKanaiyalat Lalchand Saehdw <md Othcrs v. State ofMaharcisktra andOther^, obseryed as uader: "9. ta view ofthewetl settled princqrile <xflaw that th©efficadous statutory remedy ofapp^il imdertihe provisioiis ofSedtion 17 oftiieAct-, 2002 is availablo to the petitionera asid, as such, no mterterence is wairatited by Ais Court m exordse ofits power mider Atticle 226/227 oftfae C<mstituti®o(rf'todta," For tfie rea^ons mentiotied hereiaabove aiid ^plymg the wefl settled principles oflawto the facts ofthe {a-es^nt case, tt is not necessary to go into tfae merite ofthe ca$e aad the petiti^B » dianaissed , as not mainteuiable in terms QiIndSymrgy (supm). No order asto costs. sdl- .. .„.. Satish K. Agnihotn Judge /'.ait ^L.' (2011)28cc782