SRI RAMA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, whose loan accounts were declared as Non Performing Assets (NPAs) long back in the year 2009 and thereafter under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') demand notices were issued in the year 2009 itself, have succeeded in keeping the litigation alive till date, despite the fact that twice earlier they approached this Court invoking the Writ jurisdiction and, on both occasions, they did not get favourable orders. This is the third attempt.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 had obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- vide Loan Account No.30011043530, on 30.07.2005, from the respondent-bank and created mortgage by way of depositing title deeds and also personal guarantee of 2nd petitioner. Similarly, 2nd petitioner had obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- vide Loan Account No.30011041033, on 25.07.2005, and created mortgage by depositing title deeds and also secured personal guarantee of 1st petitioner. Since both the loan accounts remained irregular, in the year 2009, both accounts were declared NPAs, and demand notices were issued to both the petitioners. Despite issuance of notices, the said accounts were not settled and as such under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, possession notices were issued on 11.08.2009 and thereafter sale notice too was issued. Petitioners thereafter filed S.A. No.25 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the DRT'), Visakhapatnam, challenging the sale notice, which was dismissed by the DRT, Visakhapatnam, on 11.12.2012. The order of the DRT, Visakhapatnam, was challenged by the petitioners vide S.A. No.74 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the DRAT'), Kolkata, which also stood dismissed on 05.12.2017. Since respondent-bank had already issued 2nd sale notice, dated 07.01.2013, because of the fact that earlier sale was not materialized pursuant to the sale notice, dated 22.01.2011, before final order was passed by the DRAT, Kolkata, the petitioners had preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P. No.1520 of 2016, wherein a prayer was made for expeditious disposal of S.A. No.74 of 2013. As stated in the Writ Petition, the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to move DRAT. After dismissal of S.A. No.74 of 2013, the petitioners again filed a Writ Petition vide W.P. No.42025 of 2017, which stood dismissed on 12.12.2017, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue remedies available to them in law, if any, in accordance with due procedure. Despite dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioners again filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:

(3.) In the Writ Petition, besides arraying the bank and its officials as respondents, the petitioners also impleaded the auction purchaser as 4th respondent. By order dated 06.03.2018, while the Writ Petition was taken up for admission before notice, learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank took notices on respondent Nos.1 to 3, whereas personal notice by registered post upon respondent No.4 was directed and thereafter on 01.05.2018 since none appeared on behalf of respondent No.4, despite service of notice, the case was directed to be listed after summer vacation, 2018 and in the meanwhile it was directed to maintain status-quo, which order is still continuing.