Amarjeet Kaur And Another vs Indian Overseas Bank Chamunda Complex Ramnagar

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

(Through Hybrid Mode)

The petitioners to the present writ petition, are admittedly the borrowers, who had taken a loan from the respondent-bank to the tune of Rs.

13,60,000/-, for the purposes of opening an Agricultural Dairy Farm. On account of default committed by them in remittance of the instalments, as

settled under the terms of the Agreement, the account of the petitioners was declared as NPA, by an order dated 31.01.2020, and thereafter a Notice

under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “the

SARFAESI Act, 2002â€​) was issued against the petitioners, as back as on 16.03.2020.

Its at a much belated stage that the petitioners have put challenge to the said Notice of 16.03.2020 now, before this Court and expressing their

willingness to remit the amount, which is now outstanding and payable by them against the said loan.

But, however, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent-bank, that if the Notice itself is taken into consideration, particularly, the

observation, which has been made in para 6, the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the said Act has already been undertaken against the petitioners

and in that view of the matter, since the proceedings itself are exclusively governed by the Central Legislation, which is a special statute, the

petitioners’ remedy would be to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short “the DRTâ€​) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

In view of the aforesaid legal embargo, this writ petition, at this belated stage, as against the Notice dated 16.03.2020, itself would not be

maintainable; the petitioners’ remedy would be to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.