Kaushar Ara vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Meerut Branch and another

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Rajesh Chandra, JJ.—It appears that the petitioner took housing loan from the respondent No. 1-I.C.I.C.I. Bank in the year 2006. Shri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the basis of instructions received, states that the petitioner is a co-borrower with one Ashfaq Alam. Default was committed in the payment of the loan. Consequently, notice dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act") addressed to the petitioner and the aforesaid Ashfaq Alam was issued by the respondent No. 2.

Shri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that after issuance of the said notice, no further action has so far been taken by the respondent No. 1.

In view of the statement made by Shri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, it is evident that only notice u/s 13(2) of the Act has been issued, and no further steps have been taken by the respondent No. 1.

The petitioner has right to file objections/representation u/s 13(3A) of the Act against the said notice. Further, in case any measure is taken by the respondent No. 1 under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, the petitioner has right to pursue appropriate remedy, as may be available to her under law.

In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.