KAVITA SONI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the notice dated 14.10.11 issued by the Respondent -Punjab National Bank ('the Bank') under Section 13(2) of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") for enforcement of security interest and the notice dated 29.12.11 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the secured assets.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that on the request of the borrower, M/s. Navkar Minechem (India) Private Limited, ('the borrower Company') the Respondent Bank sanctioned Packing Credit Limit of Rs. 275 lacs and Post Shipment (FOBNLC/FOUBNLC) Limit of Rs. 300 lacs with overall exposure/ceiling of Rs. 300 lacs. The petitioner herein alongwith Mahesh Mehta and Smt. Sushila Mehta stood as guarantor for the security of the said credit facilities sanctioned by the Respondent Bank in favour of the borrower Company. The petitioner as also Mr. Mahesh Mehta, who was a Director of the borrower Company, executed agreement of guarantee for Rs. 300 lacs in favour of the Respondent Bank. Shri Mahesh Mehta mortgaged his immovable property by deposit of original title deeds and created security interest in favour of the Respondent Bank in respect of his residential house No. H -71, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. The petitioner also mortgaged her immovable property by deposit of title deeds and created security interest in favour of the Respondent Bank in respect of her immovable property situated at Sunaro Ki Ghati, Jodhpur. According to the petitioner, she stood as guarantor for Packing Credit Limit of Rs. 25 lacs only and not for Rs. 275 lacs. Since the borrower Company made default in re -payment of the loan, the Respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The borrower Company as also the petitioner and other guarantor were served with the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner raised objections against the notice which stood disposed of by the Respondent Bank vide communication dated 1.12.11. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank issued notice dated 29.12.11 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submitted that in case of default in payment of outstanding dues, the liability of the borrower and the guarantors is co -extensive and therefore, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability and the Respondent Bank has absolute right to enforce the security interest. Learned counsel submitted that it is absolutely incorrect to state that the petitioner has created the security interest in favour of the Respondent Bank only with regard to Rs. 25 lacs. Drawing the attention of this court to the agreement of guarantee, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has created the security interest for Rs. 300 lacs and therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is false to her knowledge. Learned counsel submitted that the Respondent Bank having adopted the measures under Section 13(4), the effective and efficacious remedy by way of appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal is available to the petitioner under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act and therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.