AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioner no.1 is a proprietorship firm which took a loan from respondent no.1 Bank in the year 2015. Petitioner no. 2 Manoj Saxena is proprietor of
the said firm. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors in the said loan. They are aggrieved by a notice issued to them on 21.11.2019, by District
Magistrate, Champawat, under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
In this writ petition, petitioners have raised various issues, including the question of limitation, fraud by the bank manager etc.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the reply submitted by petitioners, under Section 13(3A) of the Act, has not been considered and
the reasons, if any, for not accepting their reply, have not been communicated to them.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that as of now, only a notice has been issued to the petitioners asking them to appear before District Magistrate
on the date fixed. No order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners has been passed as yet.
Petitioners are always at liberty to have their say by submitting a written reply to the impugned notice. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, points out that, such reply has already been submitted.
In such view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Magistrate to consider petitioners’ reply and take appropriate
decision by passing an order, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further
provided that petitioners shall be given personal hearing before passing any order.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.