Metcraft Alloys Pvt. Ltd. And ANR v. The Kapol Co-Operative Bank Ltd. And 3 ORS

P1-WPL.954.2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 954 OF 2016 Metcraft Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. } Petitioners versus The Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd. } and Ors.

} Respondents Mr. Vishal Thaker with Ms. Anjali Trivedi i/b. M/s. V. Thakers for the petitioners.

Mr. R. M. Haridas for respondent no. 1.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED :- APRIL 7, 2016 P.C. :- 1) After this petition was moved yesterday and urgent circulation was sought on the ground that respondent no. 1 bank may proceed to take possession of the secured assets, we granted production. Meaning by all this is that the matter was taken out of turn by preponing the date, for admission. 2) We find from a reading of the petition that what the petitioners are aggrieved by is not any coercive measures and particularly in terms of an order under section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the J.V.Salunke,PA

P1-WPL.954.2016.doc SARFAESI Act"), but question the notice under section 13(2) thereof. We do not think how a writ petition can be entertained against such a notice and when in the teeth of section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The remedy of multiple appeals thereunder would not enable us to exercise our writ jurisdiction and curtail the rights of the secured creditors in this manner. In the event any notice under section 14(1) is issued and the necessary authorisations are also given in terms of the directions of the authority under section 14(1), then, the petitioner may initiate such proceedings as are permissible in law. Even in an appeal under section 17(1), if the petitioners are borrowers, they can raise all pleas and based on an Act of parliament, whereunder, small scale industries enjoy some concession and benefits. We do not think any of these remedies and the pleas are in any way adversely affected by mere issuance of a notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

3) The petition is entirely misconceived and is dismissed. (G.S.KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.V.Salunke,PA