The Issue of the Notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was miscommunicated and hence the petitioners filed for a mandamus against the state bank of India: high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
In the issue of the notice Under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI that is The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The state bank of India made a statement that they made some mistakes in the official communication. Hence a judicial writ was issued as a command to the state bank of India to perform a statutory duty. (Mandamus) was filed by the petitioners. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, it was decided on the 6th of July 2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sant Parkash in the case Raja Ram & Anr. Versus Authorized officer/ chief manager of state bank of India & Anr. CWP No.11445 of 2021(O&M). The proceedings of the court were held in a virtual platform due to COVID-19 and hence recorded through video conferencing.
The following are the facts of the case, from the state bank of India, Phul town branch located in Bathinda on the 9th February 2017 the petitioners who are co-borrowers and also husband and wife had availed a loan for Rs. 29.50 lakhs. The state bank of India on 03/04/2021 deemed and declared the loan account as a non-performing asset (NPA).
which refers to a classification for loans that are in default or arrears. A loan is in arrears when principal or interest payments are late or missed. A loan is in default when the lender considers the loan agreement to be broken and the debtor is unable to meet his obligations. The reason for this declaration as NPA is because of a lack of financial discipline. Now according to section 13(2) of the SARFAESI that is The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 “Any borrower who is deemed to be under liability to a secured creditor here(state bank of India) under security agreement makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as a non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).”
Therefore this notice was given to both the petitioners (husband and wife) and the state bank of India requested the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 24,69,955 on 03rd April 2021. However, the submitted reply was on the 20th April 2021 to the notices and they were not decided within 15 days according to the terms of the provision explained in section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. According to this case now the petitioners have both filed for mandamus for directing the respondents to decide the said reply. According to the counsel of the respondent, unfortunately, they were some mistakes in the official communication, the counsel further stated that the bank is in the process of withdrawing the original notice which was given on the 3rd of April 2021, and hereafter take the necessary action by issuing fresh notices in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the high court of Punjab and Haryana held that “In view of the above, nothing more survives for adjudication in the present writ petition, and the same is hereby disposed of as infructuous.”