GAURANGBHAI BIPINBHAI PANDYA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Nalini S Lodha learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

(3.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners in the respective petitions, who are husband and wife, had taken housing loan and as the loan was not paid, the proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and ultimately, thereafter the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as to the 'securitisation Act') were initiated for disposal of the property. It appears that when the process of disposal of the property was undertaken, the petitioners had challenged the action of the bank, by preferring writ petition and the said writ petition was dismissed, against which the LPA was preferred, and the same was also dismissed being SCA No. 2004 of 2006 with 1995 of 2005, and the LPA No. 903 with 904 of 2006. However, as the liberty was given to the petitioner to offer buyer, for the higher amount by approaching before the bank, the petitioner had submitted the offer through that buyer of the higher amount, and it is an admitted position that the money has been realised by the bank as offered. The bank in view of its security interest in the property, has recovered the full amount, and it is also not in dispute that the surplus amount of Rs. 16,75,890. 75 ps. remained as balance with the bank, towards action taken under the Securitisation Act.