Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/21153/2006 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 21153 of 2006
=============================================
MANSUKHLAL
CHHAGANLAL MEHTA LEGAL HEIR OF CHHAGANLAL & 4 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAJKOT
NAGRIK SAHAKAR BANK LTD - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
DP KINARIWALA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5.
MR JR SHAH for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 11/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
Petitioners
have challenged the notice dated 9th
February 2005 issued under Section
13(2) of the The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short
Securitisation Act ) on the ground that it is barred by
limitation.
In
the present case, as we find that only notice was given to the
petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, to which
the petitioner filed reply and thereafter no grievance has been made
against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the said Act, we
are not inclined to interfere with the notice under Section 13(2) of
the Act.
Respondents
in their counter-affidavit has stated that they have taken possession
of the secured assets. On the other hand, according to the
petitioner, in view of the interim order, the petitioner is still in
possession of the property. It is not clear that whether such
possession has been taken under Section 14 of the Act. In any case,
we find that no measures taken for auction sale of the property. In
the aforesaid background, while we are not inclined to entertain with
the notice under Section 13(2), allow the petitioner to prefer an
appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. If any
such appeal under Section 17 is preferred within three weeks, the DRT
will take into consideration the fact that the petitioners were
pursuing the matter before this Court since 2006, will exclude the
period and entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits and
also decide the question whether the claim of the bank is barred by
limitation, after notice to the secured creditor bank. It will be
open to the petitioners to ask for interim relief in terms of interim
relief granted by this Court.
The
Special Civil Application is disposed of with aforesaid observations.
Direct Service is permitted.
(S.
J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J. )
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top