Delhi High Court
Anita Khanna & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 6 February, 2018
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 06.02.2018
+ W.P. (C) 1102/2018, CM APPL.4599/2018 & 4600/2018
ANITA KHANNA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ankit Mangla with Mr.
Siddharth Sharma, Advocates.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.S. Parihar with Mr. H.S.
Parihar, Advocates for RBI/R-1.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate accepts notice on
behalf of respondent no.1/RBI. In view of the order that I propose
to pass, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent no.2
bank for the moment.
2. In this writ petition, the following substantial prayers have
been sought: -
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order of direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to
ensure that the Respondent No.2 comply with the mandate
of the RBI circular bearing No.DBR.
st
No.BP.BC.2/21.04.048/2015-16 dated 01 July, 2015 issued
by the Respondent No.1; and
b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order of direction declaring the notices dated 03/11/2017 &
21/11/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the „impugned
notices‟) issued by the Respondent no.2 under Section 13
(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as
non-est and void w.e.f. 04/01/2018 on account of failure of
the Respondent No.2 to respond to the objections filed by
the Petitioners in terms of Section 13 (3-A) of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002."
3. The principal grievance of the petitioners is against the
respondent no.2 bank.
4. The petitioners are inter alia aggrieved with the manner in
which respondent no.2/ bank had proceeded to enforce its rights
under the loan agreement by taking recourse to provision of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').
5. It is not disputed before me that some amount of money is
outstanding against loan taken by the late husband of petitioner
no.1. The petitioners are aggrieved, as indicated above, as to the
manner in which the respondent no.2 Bank has exercised the
rights conferred on it under the Act proceeded to enforce its rights.
6. My attention is drawn to the fact that the respondent no.2
bank had issued two notices under Section 13 (2) of the Act. First
notice is dated 3.11.2017 while the second notice is of 21.11.2017.
6.1 Learned counsel has also taken me through the two notices
and demonstrated that while the total sum sought to be recovered
from the petitioners has increased from Rs.49,57,026.91/- to
49,90,452.61/-, the principal amount has decreased. There are
other components to the total sum claimed qua the petitioners in
the two notices in respect of which ostensibly there is a variation.
7. Furthermore, counsel for the petitioners says that after the
first notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was issued, the
respondent no.2 bank without waiting for the statutory period to
get over had its officers visit the mortgaged premises, and who in
turn pasted a notice on the subject property which read as
follows: -
"This property is in the possession of DCB Bank Limited"
7.1. Apparently, this pasting was carried out by respondent no.2
bank's officers on 17.11.2017.
8. It is not disputed before me that the petitioners have as a
matter of fact filed their objections as mandated under the Act.
These objections are dated 18.12.2017. Furthermore, counsel for
the petitioner also says that a complaint with regard to the conduct
of the officers of the respondent no.2 bank has been filed with the
Banking Ombudsman. This complaint is dated 19.11.2017.
Counsel for the petitioners concedes that the respondent no.2 bank
has not yet indicated its decision on the objections filed by the
petitioners vis-a-vis Section 13 (2) notices served upon them. I am
also informed by the counsel for the petitioners that the Banking
Ombudsman has not communicated his decision vis-a-vis the
complaint filed with regard to the conduct of the officers of the
respondent no.2 bank.
8.1 It is in this context that the petitioners have sought relief in
terms of prayer clause (a).
9. Mr. Parihar, who appears for respondent no.1/RBI says that
he will look into the matter and, if necessary, issue a suitable
communication to respondent no.2 bank to comply with the
mandate of RBI's Circular referred to in prayer clause (a).
10. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Parihar, I am presently of the view that the writ is in a sense pre-
mature. The respondent no.2 bank has not disposed of the
objections filed by the petitioners to the two notices issued under
Section 13 (2) of the Act. The objections, once disposed of will
perhaps give a right to the petitioners to take access to the
appropriate proceedings in law. Furthermore, as noted above it is
stated before me that the Banking Ombudsman has not taken any
action on the complaint of the petitioners. To be noted, this aspect
of the matter is not before me in the sense that there is no prayer
made vis-a-vis the inaction of the Banking Ombudsman. Having
said so, as indicated above, respondent no.1/ RBI being the
regulator of the banking system in the country will ensure that
respondent no.2 bank acts in accordance with the directives
contained in the aforementioned Circular and other extant
guidelines/ circulars issued by it.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition of along with all
interlocutory applications is disposed of in the aforementioned
terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 06, 2018/vikas
