VIKAS BOOK LTD Vs. BANK OF BARODA, NEHRU PLACE, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER CUM MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions were connected with the S.B.C.W.P. 999/2011, as per the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench and therefore were heard together. However, during the course of arguments, it had transpired that the parties and proceedings of Petition No. 999/2003 were different from the present ones and, therefore, the said petition is being disposed of by separate order. In the present three petitions, the petitioners are different, however, the respondent bank in the capacity of a mortgagee, is the same, and the other respondents are the mortgagors/guarantors who had mortgaged the properties in question by way of security in respect of the credit facilities availed of by one M/S Vipul Gems. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) At the out-set, it may be stated that though the subject matter and the parties in S.B.C.W.P. 999/2011 were different, the S.B.C.W.P. 1928/2011 was directed to be connected with the Petition No. 999/2011 at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, and an ex-parte order, restraining the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the rented premises was passed on 14.2.2011, on the lines of the ex-parte order passed in petition no. 999/2011. Similarly as per the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Petition No. 2234/2011 was also connected with the other two petitions being Nos. 999/2011 and 1928/2011 and similar ex-parte order not to dispossess the petitioners from the rented premises was passed by the Court on 21.2.2011. The Petition No. 2225/2011 was directed to be connected with the Petition No.2234/2011, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said petition was identical as the Petition No.2234/2011. When all the Petitions were listed before this Court, a query was put by the Court as to how the matters were connected with each other, and it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in all the petitions as to whether right of the tenant could be extinguished by mere issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), being the same, request for connecting these petitions with each other was made. Be that as it may, all these petitions were heard together at the admission stage in view of the said orders passed by the co-ordinate bench and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The facts and proceedings out of which the present petitions have arisen being different, it would be relevant and necessary to narrate the factual position of each of the three petitions separately.