NATASCHA SAHU Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dtd. 10/12/2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent-Bank asking the petitioner to vacate the premises of the mortgaged property which has been auction-sold behind the back of the petitioner without complying the mandatory procedures as prescribed under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2002') and the rules framed thereunder.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Bank vide e-mail dtd. 9/8/2018 informed the petitioner about making payment of EMI of Rs.25,150.00 against the education loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs taken by her which was to start from the month of September, 2018. The petitioner vide e-mail dtd. 5/2/2020, informed the respondent-Bank that her father expired and she herself had to bear the education expenses and thus she requested the respondent-Bank that she herself would pay the entire loan amount. She also requested the respondent-Bank to make further correspondences either on her e-mail or to her given address of Germany. She vide e-mail dtd. 7/12/2020, also intimated the respondent-Bank that she was not residing at her house situated at Ranchi (mortgaged property), however, despite her repeated attempts to contact the respondent-Bank, she failed to get any reply from its end. Surprisingly, the petitioner was served with the impugned letter dtd. 10/12/2020 at her Ranchi address informing about the auction-sale of her house (mortgaged property) purportedly following due process of law so as to realise the outstanding loan amount and other expenses.