Whether in the eventuality of issuance of any subsequent notice to the borrower during the pendency of SA, the borrower is required to file fresh S.A. every time or can invoke the jurisdiction of the DRT by filing I.A. or by amending the pending petition before the Tribunal – M/s Sri Vishnu Steels Vs. Union Bank of India and another – Punjab and Haryana High Court
Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of any specific prohibition to the rights of the borrower to file an application for amendment due to subsequent event, the borrower who had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act laying challenge to the recovery proceedings initiated against him would have remedy by way of either filing an application challenging the same purely on legal issues or for amendment of the original SA in case assailed on facts or to file a separate SA questioning the subsequent action of the secured creditor. Once having chosen a particular remedy, the borrower thereafter would be bound by the same. As a result, the impugned orders in all the three petitions are set aside.
