HI6 v. Lal
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
2. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner firm is authorized retail outlet dealer of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation / '(T-d sjnxauuy) 600Z'6'/T P34.Dp 33!4.ou p3u6ndiui 344. 04. 4.uonsjnd UOI+SD J3i|+jn^ 6ui4.D|dui34.uo3 si >|UDq 4.uspuods3J 344. 'jsAamoi-j '600Z'6"ZT P3+DP frl-d sjnxsuuy spiA ps+oadaj UJDBD SDAA 4.s3nbay 'uoisssssod 6ui>|D4. j.o UOI+SD ai|j. XD+S 04. ps+ssnbaj PUD >)UDq 31(4. j.0 UOJ4.3D pasodojd 344. paj.+.iiuqns uioSo j3uoj4.j4.3d ai|l J.SUJDSD uoi+D+uassjdsj •aoij.ou jsi^ijnj. AUD 4.noC[+iM A+Jsdojd poSDB+joui 31)4. j.o uoisssssod 3>|D4. ||!M >|UDq ai|+ qoiijM 6u!|iDj. 6002'6'fr sJOj.sq 33i4.eu 3i|4. ui psqusssp S+SSSD p3jn33S J.o uoissassod si|4. jsAopuDi)
04. j3uoi4.!j.3d 344. uodn pa|p3 (Zl-d sjnxsuuv) 6002'6'T ps+op (fr) £1 uojj.sas jspun
3314.0u Si.i spiA >|uog 4.U3puodssJ 3i|4. 'JSASMOI) '60"Z"ST P3-1-DP SDM 4.sanbsy ll-cj sjnxauuy y 60'9'92 Pa+DP OT-d sjnxsuuy apiA psiDjs+isj -(g-d sjnxsuuy) 6002'fr'OE ps+op soi+ou ^o U014.D||33UD3 JOJ. p34.S3nb3J pUD (fi-J sjnxsuuy) 6002'5'OZ P3+DP uoi+D4.u3S3jd3j y uoij.osfqo 54.1 ps+iiuiqns jsuoi+i+sd 3i|i S+l j.o •p3U34.D9ji)4. SD(V) 2002 ^O 3S13J3XS 1|3!4<VI 6U!|IDJ. '+3V 34+ J-0 (fr) £T "01+339 jspun t^Bij 'sAop A+xis UIII+IM 2S9'l8'OZ'sy j3UOj4.t4.ad 3i|4. uodn 6ui||D3 6002'fr'OE uo '+:>V 34+ ^o (2) gi U014.33S jspun 9-j sjnxsuuy j.o aai+ou jauoi4.i4.ad si|+ j.o S4.sanb3j |DUOsjsd puo uoi^D+uossjdsj
4.u3iu^Dd Joj. ZOOZ psnssi si|+ 6uuou6i y|uoq
4.uspuods3J 3i|+ +nq '>|UDq j.uspuodsoj 34+ f.0 33J+OU 3l|+ 04. +i|6nojq SDM 4.30^. sAoqo s^j. j.o ssauisnq 31(4. ^3dg 91)4. •psjadiUDi) A|snou3s si lujij. jsuoi+i+sd 344. •6uipuad j.o UOI+SD 3i)+ ^.o asnoosg (3)
43.11(M 'd'M -|3jg 344. ^o U014.3D SAOqo 344. 4.501060 /0//66S'°N Psl!j- ApD3J|D soq jauoi+i+ad si|i jsuoi+i+ad 'uuij. 3^4. j.o s+onpojd uins|oj4.3d J.o 3|DS puo X|ddns 3i|+ pusdsns ']3d8 34+ i|3!i|M j.o 4.|ns3j D SD ^^da 3ll+ PUD u*J!j-
04. papisap jsuoj4.i4.sd si|+ ussm+sq 3SOJD s+ndsip SIUOS •i<4.1jn33S |DJ34.D||03 SD A+jadojd p3puo| s+i ps6o64.jou4 poi) puo >|UDq 4.uspuods3J -/QOO'OO'02'sa J.o X+IIISDJ. UDO| 4.!psj3 4503 U3>|D4. ai|+ tuojj. PDI| jsuoj4.i4.3d sijj. •jndso^ig
4.0 ,s|3nj UDSog, ^o 3|X4.s puo SIUDU ai|+ ui diund |oj4.sd D 6uiuunj puo (,'13d8, 4.^oi|s joj.) ps+juii'l g j.o 2 36DJ Page3of5
3. Mr. Shrivastava further argued that the petitioner has already submitted its representation against the notice under Section 13 (2) dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-8) issued respondent bank as contemplated under syb-section (3A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002. The bank was duty bound to decide the representation within a period of one week of receipt of such representation or objection, however, without considering the representation of the petitioner, the order of Annexure P-1 under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 has been passed which is, on the face of it, illegal and liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 4 SCC 311.
4. I have heard tearned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The petitioner was served with thenotice dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-8) under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 mentioning therein that the petitioner had obtained financial assistance to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- by mortgaging its assets creating security interest in favour of the respondent bank, particulars of which have been described in the notice of Annexure P-8. The account of the petitioner became irregular and debt was classified as 'Non Performing Asset' by the bank. The petitioner was requested to repay the dues of outstanding liabilities, however, the petitioner neglected to repay. In these circumstances, the respondent bank vide above notice called upon the petitioner to repay the sum of Rs.20,81,632=69 paise with further interest.
6. The'petitioner in its reply dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P-9) did not dispute his liability, however, he detailed the difficulties faced by him due to which the account became irregular and also shown his readiness & willingness to repay the amount installments. -- 0+UI 6ui>|D4. 'J8A3MO)-) 'MDq j.O 3|na 31)4.
4.0U pUD UOI+3J3SIQ ^o s|ny o si Apsiusj SM+DUJS+ID 4.01(4. MD| p3|4.4.ss si +i "OT •J34.4.DUI si|+ u; uoj4.3jpsunf SUIADI) |Dunquj. <<j3A033y S4.qsq 34+ sjoj.sq IDsddo Buujs.j.sjd j.o Xpauiaj SM+DUJS+ID ^jo+n+o+s snoioDo-r^j.s UD SDl) J3UOI+!4.3d 31)4. pUD |Dunqui AjsAOsaa s+qsq 31)4. ajoj.sq '+^V 34+ '4.3V SM-I. ^o /i UOI+33S jspun 3|qD|DaddD si 200Z Z002 j-° (fr) £T "014.339 jspun sjsmod j.o 3513^3x3 AUD 4.01)4. a+ndsip
4.ou pip J3uoij.!4.3d 344. joj. |asuno3 paujD3| 'DAD+SDAIJIIS •JW •g "ZOOZ '4.3V 34+ J.O £1 UOJ4.33S J-0 (V£) uoi+oas-qns jspun suoisiAojd ^jo+opuDui '•1-3V 34-1. 3L|+ ^O UOI+D|OIA Uj ZOOZ ^O (^) g^ UOJ4.339 jspun p3p3330jd /<DM4.l|6jDJ4.S SDl| 2002 '+3V 344- J-0 (?) £1 "014.339 japun 331+ou 3i|4. 4.suiD6D jauoiii^sd 3i|4. j.o uoi+Diussajdaj /uoi+safqo
344. Suuspisuoo 31)4. 4.D114. punoj6 34^. uo gQOZ ino^iim >|UDq
4.uspuodssj '4.3V 3M4- ^o (^) gt "014.339 jspun panssi i-d sjnxsuuy j.o asjiou 31)4. p3u6nduii SDL| j3uoi4.!4.3d 3i(j. 'g •4.3V SM-I- ^° (Z) ST "014.339 j3pun 8314.0u 04. /<|daj u; jsmojjoq ai|4. Xq pssioj uojiDsfqo 31(4. 6ui+d333D +OU JOj. SUOSD3J 31)4. a+DSIUnUIUIOO 04. ^JDSS333U
4.1
4.Di|4. p|34 JSif+jnj. U3sq so^ +1 33UD4.suin3jio as3i|4. ui puo uoi+oafqo sii|
4.1)6u 3i|4. p3iusp sq 4.0uuo3 3L| j.o ssuD+dsosD-uou J.O suosoaj 3i|j. MOU>| 04. '+sy sqj. j.o (3) gi uoi4.339 jspun UIIL)
04. panSSI 3314.0U j.0 33UDnssi JSAAOJJOq 31)4. 3J3l|M 4.01)4. p|3l< uasq SDI| 4.1 31)4. ps+osFqo puo p3i|daj 's33UD+siun3ji3 35341 'sAop 09 U!44.!'" asi+ou i|4.j(v> 33UDi|diuoo-uou j.o SSDO ui (^) £^ UOJ4.3S9 J3pun U3>|D4. Sq 4.ou ^DUI jo ADIU sajnsosiu 3i|4. ^ 04. SD SUOSD3J 31)4. 6uiUID|dX3 IUIL| Aq p3+4.iuiqns Xjdsj D 4.01)4. si 4.3y 84+ J.O (g) gl UOJ4.339 japun jsMojjoq ai|4. uodn aoi+ou D BUIAJSS j.o asodjnd si|4. +DI^J. psAjasqo ^noy siusjdns 3|q,uo|-| 344. '+3V 344- j-° (2) EI "014.335 jspun p34.D|dtU3+uoo 3314.0U 344. ZOOZ l|+IM 6ui|D3p 3|IL|fVI (Djdns) S|D3!UISl|3 DlpJDW j.0 J34.4.DtU 31)4. UJ "/ Q^O^ s6Dd B!*"— consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds taken by the petitioner against the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 in its representation of Annexure P-9 and also considering the provisions of Section 17 the Act, 2002 under which the petitioner has efficacious alternative statutory remedy for redressal of his grievances raised in this petition, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative efficacious remedy available to him under the law. I!! RoshanA Sd<- sf»ve»dt. ivid^