MICROLITE INDUSTRIES Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover amounts due from the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the proceedings initiated by the Bank are illegal and contrary to the provisions under the SARFAESI Act.

(2.) The petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. No.32/2022 and the same is pending consideration. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that one among the secured assets was brought to sale and the sale was confirmed in favour of the additional 3rd Respondent in an illegal manner. It is pointed out that the sale was confirmed in favour of the additional 3rd Respondent in three days after the sale was held. It is submitted that though the petitioners pointed out the said illegality in the Securitisation Application filed before the Tribunal, Securitisation Application has not been heard.

(3.) On a pointed question from the Court as to what kind of interim relief the petitioners expect, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the possession of the residential apartment which was sold by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act is still with the petitioners.