INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. JULIEN EDUCATIONAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is by a bank which has been subsequently impleaded in a suit filed in 2007 for specific performance of a contract relating to the purchase of an immovable property. The bank is the 12th defendant in the suit and the bank was impleaded in the year 2011 along with the defendant Nos. 9, 10 and 11 as added defendants. It is the bank's case that in connection with credit facilities accorded to a constituent, the defendant Nos. 9, 10 and 11 in the suit had furnished corporate guarantees, promising to make good the default on the part of the principal debtor. It is the bank's further case that the defendant Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are joint owners of the relevant property and had mortgaged the same with the bank in connection with the corporate guarantees executed and" the credit facilities granted by the bank to its constituent.

(2.) The bank says that upon the principal debtor failing to repay the bank despite demand, the bank took steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the secured asset. The bank claims to have issued due notice under section 13(2) of the Act and, thereafter, resorted to measures under section 13(4) thereof.

(3.) The bank claims that the bank was impleaded as a party to the suit without previous notice. The bank asserts that shortly after it came to know that it had been added as a party, the bank applied for deletion of its name from the array of parties in the suit: in effect, seeking the dismissal of the suit against the bank. It is the order of rejection of such application that is challenged herein. The bank had also filed its written statement, but such matter is utterly irrelevant for the present consideration.