RENU GUPTA Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the proceedings initiated by the Bank against the petitioners under Section 13 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') and the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on an application filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Act. The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that Avinash Chander, the husband and father of the petitioners namely Renu Gupta and Prikshit Gupta was working with Dilbagh Singh, Proprietor of Karan T.V. Centre, Patiala. Dilbagh Singh was granted cash credit limit by the respondent-Bank in which Avinash Chander and his wife stood guarantors by mortgaging their house. The deed of guarantee was executed on 18.02.2003. It was on 02.06.2003, Avinash Chander and his wife submitted an application to the Bank withdrawing the guarantee that they will not be responsible for any transaction done by Karan T.V. Centre. The Bank did not respond to such communication.

(2.) It was on 21.10.2005, petitioner No. 1 was served with a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act pointing out that a sum of Rs. 67,34,240.70 is due and payable in the cash credit account of Rs. 65,00,000/-. In response to the notice, the petitioners sought return of the title deeds repudiating any liability to pay the amount. It was asserted that the Bank has increased the limit and advanced more amount instead of stopping loan facilities after the communication of the petitioners without the consent of the petitioners. The borrower deposited Rs. 64,00,000/- on 9.2,2006 and his mortgaged property was released.

(3.) It was on 18.01.2010, the Bank purportedly taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property, which led the petitioners to file an application to invoke the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. On such application, the learned Tribunal noticed the communication dated 02.06.2003 and the fact that the petitioners did not receive any reply from the Bank, held that the petitioners are liable to pay the amount in terms of liability under the continuing guarantee. The Tribunal found that deposit of Rs. 64 lacs on 09.02.2006 by Dilbagh Singh, the principal borrower and release of mortgaged property of the Dilbagh Singh in his favour will not absolve the petitioners of their liability under the deed of guarantee. It is the said order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.