Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Kumar Agrawal vs Cholamandalam Investment And ... on 9 February, 2022
1
N/AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC NO. 401 OF 2022
1. Suresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shyam Sunder Agrawal, aged about 45
years, R/o H.No.11/1351, Ward No.8, near Netaji Dharamshala, Gudhiyari,
Raipur (C.G.) 492009
2. Sushma Agrawal, R/o H.No.11/1351, Ward No.8, near Netaji
Dharamshala, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 492009
3. Rahul Agrawal, R/o H.No.11/1351, Ward No.8, near Netaji
Dharamshala, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 492009
4. Nirmala Devi Agrawal (now Dead), R/o H.No.11/1351, Ward No.8,
near Netaji Dharamshala, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) 492009
5. Shri Maruti Enterprises, 08/1542, near Netaji Kanhaiya Lal Banjari,
Ward No.8, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)
6. Krishna Trading, Shop No.24, 1st Floor, Bharat Mata Complex,
Telghani Naka, Ramsagar Para, Raipur (C.G.) 492001
... Petitioners
Versus
1. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Dare
House, 2, NSC Bose Road, Parry Chennai 600001 Tamil Nadu.
2. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, 416, 4th
Floor, National Corporate Park, opposite Maruti Business Corporate Bank,
Opposite Maruti Business Park, near Rajkumar College, G.E. Road,
Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
[09/02/2022]
1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Notice under Section
13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "SARFAESI Act")
issued by the Respondents.
2. The primary challenge to the said Notice is that the Petitioners were
earlier issued with a Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on
31.7.2021 to which the Petitioners had submitted a detailed
representation/objection on 9.8.2021. However, the said representation/
objection was not decided by the Respondents and they had straightaway
issued Notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
3. Contention of learned Counsel for Petitioners is that the mandatory
requirement under the SARFAESI Act is for a decision on the said
representation/objection filed by the borrowers and thereafter to proceed
further under the said Act. Learned Counsel for Petitioners in support of his
contention has relied upon the Order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.709/2020 decided on 25.2.2020.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondents however submits that as per his
instructions the objection/representation which the Petitioners have filed
has been dealt with and it is only thereafter that the Notice under Section
13(4) has been issued.
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the challenge is only on
the issue of not deciding the objection/representation of the Petitioner to
Notice under Section 13(2), taking into consideration the Judgment of this
Court passed in W.P.(C) No.709/2020 [Anil Yadav & Anr. v Bank of Baroda]
as also the Judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Agrawal v. ICICI
Bank & Anr. [AIR 2011 CG 1], the present Writ Petition as of now is
disposed of with a direction to the Respondents that in case the
objection/representation of the Petitioners to the Notice under Section
13(2) has till date not been decided and the same is still pending, the
Respondents may decide the same on its merits and only thereafter they
may proceed further with the proceeding under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act.
6. It is further clarified that in case the Respondents have already
decided the representation/objection of the Petitioners to the Notice under
Section 13(2), then the Order of this Court would automatically lose its
efficacy and the Respondents would be free to proceed further in
accordance with law.
7. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
sharad JUDGE
