SUMA KUMARI P. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner has received a notice scheduling the sale for 12/10/2021. It is the contention of the petitioner that even though she is the guarantor and the properties scheduled for sale belongs to the borrower, due to the word "person aggrieved" in Sec. 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 'SARFAESI Act'), she is entitled to maintain an application under the said Sec. , against the security measures now being initiated.

(2.) Adv.S.Easwaran takes notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file counter affidavit.

(3.) It is submitted by Adv.S.Easwaran that the borrower is in fact the husband of the present writ petitioner and that he had filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.4561/2019 wherein the petitioners therein had given up all contentions, both legal and factual and confined their prayer to give them six months' time to pay off the entire outstanding amount in the loan account. In view of the said observation of this Court it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the the borrower is estopped from raising any legal or factual dispute in the matter. He further points out that it is on account of the said interdiction in the aforementioned judgment that now the guarantor has come forward, challenging the sale of properties not belonging to the guarantor but belonging to the borrower.