L ASHOK CHAND Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the possession notice, dated 30-08-2005 and the consequential sale notice, dated 16-11-2005 and quash the same.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the impugned order of the second respondent was passed invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI ACT), however, the impugned possession notice, dated 30-08-2005 and subsequent sale notice, dated 16-11-2005 are totally illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, hence, liable to be quashed.

(3.) The petitioners have further stated that they have submitted their explanation, dated 22-01-2005 to the notice sent under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, however, without considering the same, the impugned notice was issued, hence, the same is liable to Be quashed. It is further contended that no valid mortgage has been created and a non-speaking order was passed by the second respondent, without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioners and that the respondents have failed to give credence to the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, dated 03-01-2005 passed in I.A. No. 406 of 2004, which was filed by the petitioner herein, seeking a direction to the respondent bank to return back the original documents, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the question involved was a question of fact and the same could be decided only after a full-fledged trial is completed. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that there is no alternative remedy available to the petitioners.