B.PATTABHIRAMAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Writ Petitions have been filed to call for the records of the respondent relating to impugned E-Auction Sale Notice, dated 29.08.2018 and quash the same.

(2.) Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions, is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The petitioners are the guarantors to the loan facility provided by the respondent-Bank to M/s.GB Engineering Enterprises Private Limited, Trichy. They are also the Directors of the said Company. The said Company had availed various financial facilities with the respondent-Bank for the past 37 years and the Company was given financial facility limit upto Rs.36.28 Crores, out of which, the said Company availed only Rs.36 Crores as loan. As against the said loan, the valuable properties/assets of the said Company were given as "primary security" by creating equitable mortgage with the respondent, totally valued at Rs.87.5 Crores. The said Company remained insolvent and the dues were mounting. Hence, the respondent-Bank initiated measures against the said Company under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'). Accordingly, a demand notice was issued on 07.07.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the said Company and its Directors and Guarantors (including the Writ Petitioners herein), demanding repayment of Rs. 30,50,63,587.43 as on 07.07.2017, within 60 days from the date of the notice, otherwise, the Bank will exercise their rights under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, on 05.09.2017, the said Company (borrower) submitted a detailed representation to the respondent-Bank as envisaged under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is the stand of the petitioners that the respondent may consider such representation before coming to any conclusion as mandated under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. But, contrary to the said mandatory provision, the respondent-Bank did not care to send any communication to the said Company as to whether the representation dated 05.09.2017 was considered by them or rejected.