Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 531 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHLegality and validity of the notice dated 30th April, 2009 issued by the respondent-bank in terms of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inerest Act, 2002 questioned Held that:- In the instant case, the conduct of the writ petitioner which lulled the respondent-bank into a some kind of hybernation is a factor which has its own role in contributing to the delay in taking measures by the respondent-bank under sub-section (4) of section 13. Therefore, any intervention by us at this stage would only be putting a premium to such a conduct of the writ petitioner. Hence, for this reason also, we refrain from interfering with the impugned notice. Pursuant to section 17 read with section 18 of The Recovery of Debts Act, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is ousted and the Tribunal constituted under the said Act alone has jurisdiction to recover the magnitude of debt, like in the present case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the respondent-bank cannot fall back upon the provisions contained under sub-section (4) of section 13, but must fall back upon the option of going to the civil court is a contention which disregards the provision of the Recovery of Debts Act which ousted the jurisdiction of the civil court. At any rate, any such option to fall back upon the otherwise normal mode of recovery, will be a far more time consuming affair and that would, even according to the writ petitioner, be further compounding the mischief to him. Therefore, it would be wholly in the interests of the writ petitioner to prevent the debt from escalating any further. Hence, for this reason also, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned notice. Appeal dismissed.
|