DIYAN ENGINEERING Vs. BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, the essential grievance of the borrowers/tenants is against the coercive loan recovery proceedings taken up under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In the companion W.P.No.23612/2022, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the sub-registrar not to register the Sale Certificate that has been granted to the auction buyer of the security property.

(2.) Learned advocates appearing for the petitioner seek to falter the recovery proceedings vehemently contending that the mandatory procedure has not been followed and that some of the security properties which are of very higher price have been auctioned for a very low price and that the action of the respondent-bank virtually amounts to fraud on the borrowers and the tenants.

(3.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the bank points out that all the petitioners have got an alternate & equally efficacious remedy of appeal u/s 17 of the 2002 Act; the petitioner in W.P.No.18462/2021, had preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution and that the bank will not oppose their application for restoration of the appeal to the Board. He also points out that in W.P.No.18349/2021, appeal is still pending and therefore, the said appeal can be heard by the appellate body along with the other appeal to be restored, in accordance with law.