(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