- (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Vijay Saxena, learned counsel for respondent Bank and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioners have come up assailing the notice dated 1st March, 2018 issued by the respondent Financial Institution, fixing the date of auction as 31st March, 2018. The said date has already expired but even otherwise learned counsel for petitioners has raised several submissions contending that the auction notice was issued without serving any statutory notice as required under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2002').
(3.) The petitioners also urged that guarantors were also not served, but possession notice under Section 13(4) of Act, 2002 came to be affixed. The possession notice was not published as alleged in paragraph no. 7 of writ petition. The auction notice was published on 8th June, 2017 in two news papers without following the procedure as prescribed in the Act, 2002. It is admitted in paragraph no. 10 of the petition that the petitioners filed a Securitisation Application no. 292 of 2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal challenging the auction notice earlier issued on 8th May, 2017. The application was heard and disposed of and recovery proceedings were set aside vide order dated 18th July, 2017.;