AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2002).
BACKGROUND:
(I) The case set up by the petitioner is that he being a poor person has been granted assistance under ""RAJIV RINN YOJNA"" (RRY) for
construction of the house. The respondent Bank has released Rs.8,00,000/ but the benefit of Rajiv Rinn Yojna scheme has not been extended to
him because monthly installment instead of Rs.4000/, Rs.8000/ are being recovered which the petitioner has been paying for the last one year.
(II) It appears that the petitioner has become defaulter. The respondent Bank has issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002,
aggrieved whereof he has filed instant petition.
(III) Before filing instant petition, petitioner has also filed a civil suit before the Court of District Judge, Srinagar, for declaring the loan advanced in
his favour to have been advanced under Rajiv Rinn Yojna scheme so shall be declared entitled to the benefits of said scheme, with a further prayer
for remitting back the interest charged on the principle amount from the period July, 2016 to April, 2017 and for release of interest subsidy under
the said scheme.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent Bank. Petition on the face of it is premature and is not
otherwise maintainable because efficacious remedy shall be available to the petitioner under Section13(4) of the Act of 2002.
In terms of Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, petitioner has been informed that he has defaulted in repayment of the secured debt in violation of
the terms agreed upon, so has been called to pay the Bank sum of Rs.8,94,164/ together with interest w.e.f. 01.12.2017. Para 6 of the notice
provides that in case petitioner fails to discharge the liability in full within 60 days from the date of notice, Bank will take action under sub section
(4) of Section 13 of the Act of 2002. The petitioner has to respond to the notice. After responding to the notice, if action is taken under Section
13(4) of the Act, then as against that action, remedy of appeal is prescribed under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Instead of responding to the said
notice, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
It appears that the petitioner has filed the instant petition with the object of scuttling the proceedings so initiated under the Act of 2002. It is open
for the petitioner to project whatever he has in support of his stand as against the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act by filing reply to the said
notice. In case any action is taken under Section 13(4) of the Act, then has a right of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. No case has been made
out which would warrant indulgence by this Court by having resort to extraordinary jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated above, we decline to entertain the writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Caveat shall also stand discharged.