SIVAKUMAR G Vs. POWERTURN ENGINEERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The identical petitioners in both the Original Petition and the Writ Petition challenge the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal [for brevity "DRT"] in a Securitisation Application [for brevity "S.A."] filed against the proceedings taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for brevity "SARFAESI Act"], initiated by the creditor-Bank and against the Asset Reconstruction Company; the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition, having approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. The Original Petition is against Exhibit P9 order of the DRT.

(2.) The petitioners admittedly availed two loans; one Cash Credit Loan and the other Housing Loan, from the respondent-Bank mortgaging residential property of the petitioners. Proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act; when the petitioners approached the Tribunal under Section 17 raising various contentions. The application was numbered as S.A.477 of 2010. There was also an interim order granted in the said S.A. at the time of admission, wherein the Bank was restrained from further proceeding with the matter. The said interim order stood extended and eventually when the matter was pending, the respondent-Bank filed an application to withdraw the SARFAESI proceedings, finding certain deficiencies in the proceeding. The creditor-Bank had also transferred the security interest created in the Cash Credit loan to the Asset Reconstruction Company. The Asset Reconstruction Company also filed an application for substitution in the S.A. filed by the petitioners. The Tribunal, considering the prayer for withdrawal, was "not appreciative of the attitude of the applicants" in having objected to the withdrawal of the application.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners specifically refers to Section 19 of the SARFAESI Act and points out that in certain cases damage would be the necessary consequence in the event of violation of the provisions of the Act, which could be awarded by the DRT. It is also submitted that there is an application filed at Exhibit P10 for such damages, which has to be considered by the DRT.