[M/s. Wasan Shoes Ltd. & Ors. v. Chairperson, Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad & Ors., AIR 2009 Allahabad 163]
The respondent-bank filed a claim application in the year
2004 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of Rs.14.97 crores plus
interest. During its pendency, a demand notice was issued u/s.13(2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002. It was alleged in the said notice that the
petitioners were required to discharge their liabilities within sixty days
and, in the meanwhile, the petitioners were restrained from dealing with the
secured assets, in any manner, whatsoever. The secured assets were at Agra and
the other at Noida.
The petitioners submitted their reply to the notice denying
any liability to pay, and contended that no amount was due or payable by them,
and that, the notice was liable to be withdrawn. A possession notice u/s.13(4)
of the Act was issued, intimating the petitioners that possession of plot at
Agra had been taken.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal, disposed of the interim
application holding that the sale of the property at NOIDA could not be made
by the respondent-bank, inasmuch as the possession of this plot was not taken
u/s.13(4) of the Act, but permitted the respondent-bank to proceed with the
sale of the plots located at Agra. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the
said order, filed an appeal u/s.18 of the Act, which was dismissed.
The petitioner contended that the notice u/s.13(2) of the
Act was with regard to the two properties located at Agra and NOIDA, and that,
possession u/s.13(4) of the Act was only confined to one property located at
Agra, and this procedure, adopted by the respondent-bank, was patently
illegal.
The Court observed that there was no error in the issuance
of notice u/s.13(2) of the Act. It is open to a secured creditor to move
against any secured assets and it is not essential that all the secured
properties should be put to sale simultaneously. If by sale of one property
substantial recovery could be made, it is not necessary that all the
properties should be sold or possession be taken u/s.13(4) of the Act. Thus
the Court did not find any error in the procedure adopted. Insofar as Rule
8(2) of the Rules is concerned, the publication had been made in two
newspapers, and that substantial compliance had been made under Rule 8(2) of
the Rules. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
