UNION OF INDIA Vs. SENTHILNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, a temple renovator and his wife, have approached this Court to have the Ext.P6 notice quashed. They allege that the Bank abused the process. Besides, they seek more time to pay off the dues. They have also sought an interim direction: staying all further proceedings under the Ext.P6 notice.

(2.) The petitioners' counsel submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to entertain an application for possession. For this, he relied on the Supreme Court's Ext.P8 interim order.

(3.) To begin with, in 2011, three companies borrowed nearly Rs. 4 Crore from Lord Krishna Bank (according to the petitioner) or from Lakshmi Vilas Bank (according to the respondent bank). The petitioners offered their properties as security. On default, the original lending-bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and issued the Section 13(2) notice. After that, the 2nd respondent, an asset re-construction company, took over the loan.