A.DILSHAD BEGUM Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.N.Dilip Kumar learned counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Since this Writ Petition is being disposed of without affecting the interest of the third respondent in any manner and in view of the fact that the present Writ Petition is filed challenging auction notice issued against the Petitioner alone under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act,2002, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/Bank.

(3.) It is seen that the third respondent promoted property and sold it to various buyers by constructing flats. The Petitioner is one among such buyer. It is further stated that between the third respondent and the respondents 1 and 2/Bank, there were proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, for recovery of loan amount, which ultimately ended in passing an order in S.A.No.578 of 2016, dated 11.5.2017 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, directing the parties to hold mutual negotiations towards the settlement of the loan amount. It is stated that before passing such order, some payments were made by the third respondent. The present notice under challenge is issued against the Petitioner, who also availed loan from the respondents 1 and 2/Bank, which according to the Petitioner has been fully discharged.