(1.) THE legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17372/2007 dated 19.09.2011 is called in question in this petition. Heard learned counsel for all the parties.
(2.) THE appellant had borrowed loan from Syndicate Bank in order to construct a hotel in a prominent place in Belgaum. According to the petitioner, the hotel is constructed on the land measuring 1825.25 Sq. meters with a built up area of 4749.64 Sq. meters consisting of basement, ground, first, second, third and fourth floors. The basement used for car parking and utility. The ground floor used for reception hall, centrally air -conditioned Restaurant cum Bar and Restaurant. In the first floor, a party hall and 24 rooms in each of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors. According to him, entire hotel building is well furnished. The appellant had availed a loan of Rs. 1,84,70,000/ -. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the premises was valued at Rs. 3.16 crores. On the ground that, appellant did not pay the dues payable to the bank, by invoking provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SERFAESI Act, 2002') by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take formal possession of the property and later on the property was brought for sale. The appellant had challenged bringing the property for sale by filing W.P. No. 41445/2004, which came to be dismissed on 28.02.2005. Thereafter, again the property was brought for sale by the bank by issuing sale notice dated 09.03.2005. Though paper publication was issued by the bank, the property was not sold on account of non -participation of the prospective buyers.
(3.) THE respondent No. 2 again issued sale notice by publishing in Indian Express newspaper (English daily) on 28.04.2006 fixing the date for sale as 08.05.2006. Another paper publication was issued publishing in Marathi daily newspaper 'Tarun Bharat' on 05.05.2006 inviting the tenders from prospective buyers and the prospective buyers were required to submit their tenders on or before 06.05.2006 at 2.00 p.m. the appellant had challenging the paper publication dated 28.04.2006 by filing a writ petition, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn since the said writ petition became infructuous, in view of sale having been held on 08.05.2006.