NANDITA BAGLARI v. THE ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 3 ORS

2: NANDITA BAGLARI W/O SRI GAUTAM MEDHI R/O NALIAPOOL P.O.- NALIAPOOL P.S.- GABHARUPATHAR DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001 VERSUS THE ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 3 ORS. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5. 2:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ASSAM GRAMIN BANK REGIONAL OFFICE DIBRUGARH MILAN NAGAR P.O. C.R. BUILDING DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786003. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (M) DIBRUGARH DIST.- DIBRUGARH Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN- 786003. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DIBRUGARH EAST REVENUE CIRCLE DIBRUGARH PIN- 786001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, A G V B BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Date : 10.08.2022 (R.M. Chhaya, CJ.) ORDER Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Banerjee, learned standing counsel, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the possession notice dated 29.03.2021 issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. We are fortified in our view by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. -Vs- Mathew K.C., reported in AIR 2018 SC 676, wherein it was observed as under: Page No.# 3/5 “9. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in the country was felt not to have a level playing field in comparison to other participants in the financial markets in the world. The financial institutions in India did not have the power to take possession of securities and sell them. The existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions had not kept pace with changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms resulting in tardy recovery of defaulting loans and mounting non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Narasimhan Committee I and II as also the Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government Act had suggested enactment of new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and sell them without court intervention which would enable them to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order.