Delhi High Court
Sh Naveen Kumar And Anr vs Canara Bank on 11 April, 2022
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.04.2022
+ W.P.(C) 5697/2022 & CM APPL. 16976/2022
NAVEEN KUMAR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Sidharth Chopra and Mr Navneet,
Advocates.
Versus
CANARA BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Anju Jain, Mr Hitesh Sachar and Ms
Prachi Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
[Physical court hearing/ hybrid hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral):
1. On the previous date i.e., 05.04.2022, after hearing the counsel for the
petitioners, the following had been recorded:
"2. This writ petition, inter alia, is directed against the order
dated 01.04.2022, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,
Delhi [in short, 'DRT'] in SA No. 144/2022.
3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 shows that
a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 [in short, 'SARFAESI Act'] dated 06.04.2021,
has been served on the petitioners by the respondent-bank.
3.1. This fact is not disputed by Mr Kirti Uppal, who appears on
behalf of the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:17.04.2022
12:17:18
3.2. Mr Uppal says that objections were preferred by the
petitioners to the above-mentioned notice. In this behalf, our
attention has been drawn by Mr Uppal to Annexure P-10,
appended on page 77 of the case file.
3.3. The document appended to Annexure P-10 is a
communication dated 24.05.2021. Facially, this communication
has been addressed to the MD and CEO, Canara Bank Ltd.
However, the said communication does not, specifically, advert
to the Section 13(2) notice issued by the respondent/bank,
referred hereinabove.
3.4. According to Mr Uppal, there has been no disposal of the
objections preferred by the respondent, as required under
Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.
4. Issue notice to the respondent-bank, via all permissible
modes, including e-mail.
5. List the matter on 11.04.2022."
2. Mr Hitesh Sachar has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondent/bank.
2.1. Mr Sachar says that the communication dated 24.05.2021 is not a
representation or objection, which addresses the aspects alluded to in the
Section 13(2) notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 [in short, 'SARFAESI Act'], by the respondent/bank.
3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid contention, Mr Sachar says the
respondent/bank will consider the communication dated 24.05.2021.
3.1. Mr Sidharth Chopra, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that if
such a direction is issued, the petitioners will be satisfied, and will not take the
objection that because the respondent/bank is now considering the
representation/ objection under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, the
Signature Not Verified
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:17.04.2022
12:17:18
notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act
would fall by the wayside.
4. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of, based on the statement made by Mr
Sachar on behalf of the respondent/bank that they will deal with the
communication dated 24.05.2021, as if it was a representation/objection
preferred under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.
4.1. In case the result of such consideration is not favourable to the cause of
the petitioners, the petitioners will have liberty to take recourse to an
appropriate remedy, albeit as per law.
5. Needless to add, till the respondent/bank conveys its decision vis-à-vis
the communication dated 24.05.2021, no precipitate steps will be taken by the
respondent-bank against the petitioners.
6. Consequently, pending application shall stand closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
POONAM A. BAMBA, J
APRIL 11, 2022/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:17.04.2022
12:17:18
