Case Law Details
Rajesh Sukamaran Nambiar Vs Central Bank of India (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition under Article 226 held that Notice issued by Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be challenged by invoking Writ jurisdiction as effective alternate remedy has been provided under Section 17 of the Act.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent Bank u/s Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as under the impugned Notice the Petitioner has been termed as ‘guarantor’. The Petitioner tendered their resignation and then the Petitioner no.1 approached the respondent Bank addressing a communication dated 02.08.2018 requesting to release his property mortgaged with the Bank and to issue No Due Certificate. It is stated that as on date, as per the impugned Notice dated 16.07.2021 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the respondent-Bank has demanded a sum of Rs.33,96,571/- to the directors of the company in default. The said notice reflected the names of the petitioners as well as the mention of clause which reflects that under the eventuality the demand is not satisfied, the bank shall be constrained to recover the same by sale of the mortgaged property, which also includes the property of the petitioners as property-III. It is the case of the Petitioners that the impugned notice dated 16.07.2021 is required to be quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners in view of the fact that petitioners are neither the directors nor guarantor, more particularly, considering the fact that the respondent-Bank had already issued No Due Certificate releasing the petitioners from all the liabilities. It is stated that even otherwise the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 would not be applicable to the present petitioners, in view of the fact that the said proceedings are pertaining to the recovery of debt and as far as the present petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are neither borrowers nor the debtors of the respondent-Bank.
The Petitioner contended that the filing of appeal before the DRT would not be an efficacious remedy so far as the present petitioners are concerned.
The petitioner further contended that having deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with the Bank against the pending liability of the Company as a part payment acknowledged by the Bank to secure another property, the said proposal having been accepted by the Bank, No Due Certificate also came to be issued on 27.03.2019 by the respondent-Bank.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
