- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Vivek Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Arnab Banerji appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioners took some loan from respondent No.2-Bank and the dues accrued to Rs. 3,64,46,861.60. Consequently, the respondent Bank proceeded under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act). In the said matter, the mortgaged immovable property being House No. R-12/24, Rajnagar, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, was proceeded to be attached by the impugned order dated 25.6.2020 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and possession thereof was directed to be given to the respondent Bank. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the necessary requirements as provided under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were not fulfilled by the respondent no. 2 and no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the respondent Bank to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 25.6.2020. He, therefore, submits that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 38578 of 2018 (Kumkum Tentiwal Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others decided on 11.12.2018), the impugned order deserves to be quashed and a fresh order needs to be passed by the respondent No.1 after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submits that against the aforesaid Division Bench judgement, a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8191 of 2019 (Syndicate Bank Vs. Kumkum Tentiwal and others) was filed before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by order dated 6.5.2019.;