ORDER
Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):
Besides seeking quashing of the notice dated 16.1.2009 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from taking over physical possession of the properties of the petitioner-company under Section 13(4) read with Section 14 of the Act.
The petitioner's own case is that at the time of setting up of the industrial unit in the year 1993, term loan of Rs. 67 lacs and Rs. 33 lacs was availed by it from Punjab Financial Corporation (PFC) and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC), respectively. Due to the alleged depleted financial conditions, the petitioner company is stated to have filed a Reference with BIFR in the year 2003. Thereafter, it approached the PFC and PSIDC for one-time settlement and offered Rs. 65 lacs, which was further enhanced to Rs. 71.20 lacs, for both the companies. The petitioner's offer was allegedly not accepted.
It is not denied that earlier also, notice under section 13(2) of the 2002 Act was issued to the petitioner on 9.1.2007 and its objections against the same were also disposed of on 7.3.2007 The petitioner thereafter challenged that notice/order before this Court in CWP No. 6356 of 2007 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide self-speaking judgment dated 15.1.2008, after holding that:-
“From the facts, it is crystal clear that the said objections filed by the petitioner vide Annexure P-13 dated 2.3.2007 stand disposed of by the respondents vide their reply dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure P-14) meaning thereby that there is substantial compliance of Section 13(3)(a) of the Securitization Act enabling the respondent-Corporation to take further steps as provided under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act. Even otherwise to our mind, the writ petition on this account is premature as no steps under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act have been taken by the respondents which can be further challenged and which is also appealable under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.”
Now a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 16.1.2009 has been issued to the petitioner calling upon it to hand over possession of the secured assets as the petitioner has not been able to pay the due amount of Rs. 257.33 lacs as on 31.7.2006 to PFC and another sum of Rs. 146.25 lacs as on 31.7.2006 to PSIDC.
No meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner. On a query by this Court, as to whether the petitioner is still ready and willing to pay the loan amount, its learned counsel is not ready to make any commitment. No procedural illegality has been pointed out in the impugned action.
No case to interfere with the impugned notice is made out.
Dismissed.
February 4, 2009. [Surya Kant]
kadyan Judge