Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P.K. Kalit a, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The petitioner herein took a Term Loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and a Cash Cred it Limit also of Rs.15,00,000/- from the IndusInd Bank Ltd., Guwahati Branch(in short, respondent-Bank) in the year 2006. The petitioner claims to have repaid t he Term Loan with interest during the Financial Year 2009-10 and, then, requeste d the Assistant Vice-President of the respondent-Bank to extend the Cash Credit Limit by Rs.10,00,000/- in April, 2009. The petitioner also claims that its Cash Credit Limit has not been extended and, on the other hand, the respondent-Bank issued a notice, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act), classifying the petitioner’s account as NPA with direction to make paymen t of a sum of Rs.16,90,904.66 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the com munication.

The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, filed its objection allegi ng irregularities in the maintenance of accounts by the respondent-Bank and requ ested the respondent-Bank to revoke its order classifying the petitioner’s accou nt as NPA and also to allow the petitioner to operate its Cash Credit Account so that it can liquidate the balance amount, if any. Appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel, has submitted that as far as the respondent-Bank is concerned, it has permitted the petitioner to operate the petitioner’s account. In fact, Mr. Choudhury, lea rned counsel submits that after receipt of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.4,96,000/-. Acting upon the su bmission so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalita, learned coun sel, submits that if the petitioner makes payment of its dues, the respondent-Ba nk would not proceed further with the notice, which was issued under Section 13( 2) or else, the respondent-bank would have to take resort to the provisions of S ection 13(4) of the said Act, but till now, the respondent-bank has not taken an y steps in terms of the provisions of Section 13(4) expecting that the petitione r would make payment of its dues.

Because of the fact that no action has been taken by the respondent-bank in terms of the provisions of Section 13(4), it remains open for the petitioner to approach, seeking appropriate reliefs, a civil court of competent jurisdicti on, for, it is only when action, under Section 13(4) of the Act, is taken by the respondents-Bank, for the provisions of the said Act bar institution of civil s uit. In view of the fact that recourse to Civil Court is, at this stage, not fully ba rred, we are not inclined to admit this writ petition. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition as not sustainable in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case and give liberty to the petitioner t o approach this Court with appropriate application, if so advised, in future. Considering the fact with regard to the exact sum of money, which has to be paid by the petitioner, there is some controversy, the respondent-bank is he reby directed to furnish a complete statement of accounts to the writ petitioner .