M/S Safe City Cargo vs Icici Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 15891 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13767/2021

1. M/s Safe City Cargo, Through Its Proprietor Suren Kumar Somani S/o Nagar Mal Somani Age 48 Years, B/c Maheshwari R/o Ward No. 15, Near New Gurudwara, Purana Bazar, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

2. Yashoda Devi W/o Suren Kumar Somani, Aged About 44 Years, B/c Maheshwari R/o Ward No. 15, Near New Gurudwara, Purana Bazar, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. Shri Nagar Mal Somani S/o Late Shri Chen Roop Somani, Aged About 74 Years, B/c Maheshwari R/o Ward No. 15, Near New Gurudwara, Purana Bazar, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Icici Bank, Through Its Bank Manager Address Near Chawi Cinema, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar (Raj.).

2. Icici Bank Ltd., Through Its Authorized Officer Saurabh Mathur Address 3Rd Floor, Regional Office, Rani Sagar Complex, Near Jaljog Circle, Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Icici Bank, Through Its Managing Director Address Icici Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, State Gujrat.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vivek Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Vijay Purohit



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

21/10/2021

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged

respondent Bank's action of taking symbolic possession of the

petitioners' secured assets vide notice dated 08.09.2021, issued

(2 of 3) [CW-13767/2021]

under Section 13(4) of the Secrutisation, Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

(for short, 'the Act of 2002').

2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset

argued that in response to notice dated 09.07.2021, issued by the

respondent-Bank in exercise of powers under Section 13(2) of the

Act of 2002, the petitioners have sent an objection/representation

dated 25.08.2021 by registered post acknowledgment due, but

the same was returned/refused by the respondent-Bank for the

reasons best known to it.

3. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards copy of the

track report (Annex.5), issued by the Postal Department and

highlighted that the same clearly records, "item returned refused".

4. He, therefore, argued that the respondent has proceeded

arbitrarily and has not even accepted the objection sent by the

petitioners much less considering them objectively. He argued that

petitioners' rights, conferred by Section 13(3A) of the Act of 2002

have been violated.

5. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank,

appearing on Caveat, argued that as the petitioners are having an

efficacious remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under

Section 17 of the Act of 2002, this Court should not interfere in

the matter in light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court

rendered in the cases of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati

Tondon & Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and Transcroe Vs. Union of

India & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 125].

6. It was also argued that the instant writ petition is not

maintainable as the respondent - Bank is not a State within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(3 of 3) [CW-13767/2021]

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering that symbolic possession has been taken in flagrant

violation of principles of natural justice and without even accepting

petitioners' objection sent through registered post

acknowledgment due, this Court is inclined to grant limited

indulgence to the petitioners.

8. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

respondent - Bank to consider petitioners' representation in

accordance with law.

9. The petitioners may file a fresh representation along with a

copy of the earlier representation dated 25.08.2021 and a certified

copy of the order instant.

10. In case such representation is filed on or before 25.10.2021,

the respondent - Bank shall consider the same in accordance with

law and pass appropriate order on or before 10.11.2021, under

intimation to the petitioners.

11. Until petitioners' representation is so decided, the

respondent - Bank shall not take actual physical possession of the

petitioners' secured assets.

12. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

66-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)