SBI, Its Officers And The Law Firm Engaged By Them Are Ignorant Of Basic Principle Of Law: Bombay HC [Read Order]

First court of the Bombay High Court on Monday expressed displeasure at the conduct of State Bank of India, its officials and the law firm engaged by them while hearing a writ petition. At the very outset, the division bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre observed- "The absence of effective assistance to the Court by learned counsel for Respondent No.2(SBI), we are constrained to defer hearing in the Writ Petition, but at the outset, would be failing if we do not record our anguish on the conduct of the 2nd Respondent and the Law firm which represents the 2nd Respondent." Advocate Rakesh Singh from MV Kini and Co. appeared on behalf of State Bank of India. SBI advanced a credit having limit of Rs.8.95 crores to the petitioner Rambo Fashion. The statement of account issued by SBI shows that as of October 13, 2010, there was no default. The petitioner was well within the limit of the credit advanced and the breach of the limit took place for the first time on October 14, 2010. As per the RBI Guidelines, the account becomes a Non-Performing Asset, if within 90 days the default is not rectified. Therefore, the said account could not have been declared NPA, thus, a notice under SARFAESI Act could not have been issued as such 90 day period had not been completed. However, on June 25, 2011, the notice contemplated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the Authorized Officer of SBI. Petitioner responded through their counsel on July 27, 2011 and the reply was considered by the Law firm and rejected on August 8, 2011. Court expressed its disappointment at such lapses on behalf of the bank and the law firm- "In the commercial capital of the country, we find the State Bank of India, its officers and the Law firm it engaged are ignorant of even the basic principle of law. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, the secured assets have been sold in auction. We would require effective assistance from Respondent No.2. This is the reason why we defer the hearing of the Writ Petition. The Authorized Representative from Respondent No.2 shall be present in the Court with a List of Dates and Events with pagination referred to therein so that the Court can effectively deal with the matter on the next date of hearing."Click here to download the Order

SBI, Its Officers And The Law Firm Engaged By Them Are Ignorant Of Basic Principle Of Law: Bombay HC [Read Order]

Nitish Kashyap

Tags