PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DEOBAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from making the recovery from the petitioners, who stood guarantor, and also for restraining them from holding the auction as published in the local newspapeis.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners' brother Gautam Singh purchased a plot in 1998, and he had taken the loan Rs, 5,90,000/-from the respondent No. 1 for constructing the house. The entire amount could not be paid and the principal debtor died of heart attack on 19-5-2004. The notice under Section 13 (2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued to the debtor as well as to the petitioners on 16-10-2003, and in pursuance of the same, the house is being auctioned. Hence this petition.

(3.) The petitioners do not disclose anywhere as to whether the said Gautam Singh has left his widow or any legal heir behind him, as no one has been impleaded on his behalf. Secondly, petitioners do not disclose as to whether they were the owner of the part of the land on which the house had been constructed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to explain that if the recovery is being made from the estate of the deceased debtor, how the petitioners could have objection. A parrot like argument is made that petitioners are guarantors and thus no recovery can be made from them.