S. KASTHURI Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the sale certificate issued by the first respondent vide his proceedings nil, dtd. 2/1/2020 and consequential sale deed dtd. 9/1/2020 executed by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) Heard Mr.Mayilvahana Rajendran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents carefully and perused the materials available on record.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that her husband Mr.Sivan was running a business in the name and style of M/s.Kasthuri Industries and availed credit facilities to develop and promote the business, approaching the respondent bank for business loan during the year 2004. The respondents bank sanctioned the business loan of TL-OCC to the tune of Rs.6,50,000.00 on 22/1/2004, in the name of the petitioner and her husband Mr.Sivan stood as a guarantor to the said loan. Later the loan account was declared as NPA by the respondent bank. In furtherance to the same, the first respondent bank issued demand notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002 for an outstanding loan due of Rs.6,67,465.00. Subsequently on 29/5/2009, the first respondent bank issued the possession notice under Sec. 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, the first and second respondents colluded with the third respondent to proceed with the sale of the writ petitioner's house property by means of an illegal sale proceedings and she came to know the same through the reply under Right to Information Act dtd. 28/9/2015 from the second respondent. That apart, even as on date, the writ petitioner is in possession of her residential house and that the first respondent bank did not auction the property under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.