- (1.) WE have heard Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the E -auction Notice dated 19.3.2014 issued by the Bank for auction of the property of the petitioner for recovery of amount under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent Bank had earlier filed Original Application No. 321 of 2011 -Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. M/S Sakshi Enterprises and others, under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 wherein the petitioner had put in appearance and had filed his reply. However, by impugned notice the Bank is taking proceeding under the Act and has fixed the minimum reserved price, which is much less than the market value of the property and hence for the aforesaid two reasons, the impugned notice may be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the Bank had already initiated proceedings under the Act as far back as in the year 2010 and against the notice dated 4.10.2010 under Section 13(2) of the Act, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 66427 of 2010 -M/S Sakshi Enterprises Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, which was disposed of on 15.11.2010, whereby the petitioner was extended the benefit of depositing the defaulted amount in six equal quarterly installments. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank states that the petitioner did not take the benefit of the liberty extended by the writ Court and hence the Bank has proceeded with measures under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner and the impugned notice is a consequence of those measures, hence this Court may not interfere in the same as also for the reason that the petitioner has got statutory remedies available under the Act itself.;