SAURABH LAVANIA ,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. J. S. Makker, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite parties. The same is taken on record. Facts, in brief, as alleged in the writ petition are that Smt. Manorama Singh is the proprietor of firm in the name and style of M/s K. Kumar and Company/petitioner, which deals with the business of Electronic Goods. The petitioner had taken a cash credit limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. The petitioner opened a bank Account No. 01004015002375 in the Oriental Bank of Commerce (in short "Bank"), Aminabad, Lucknow. In relation to the cash credit limit in issue, two properties bearing Khasra No.19 (m) Khargapur, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow measuring 185.81 sq. meter and 351.55 sq. meter were mortgaged, which was purchased by the husband of the proprietor of the petitioner.
(2.) Due to some financial problem, the outstanding loan could not be paid by the petitioner and the above said account was declared Non Performing Assets. On 05.12.2016, notice was served upon the petitioner under Section 13 (4) of The Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act, 2002") in which it is mentioned that opposite parties have taken possession over the mortgaged properties. Thereafter, on 17.12.2016, first E-auction sale notice was served on the petitioner and final E-auction sale notice dated 11.10.2019 was served upon the petitioner.
(3.) At present, business of the petitioner is running and petitioner is making every effort to pay the outstanding amount. According to E-auction sale notice dated 11.10.2019, the petitioner has to pay the outstanding loan along with interest i.e. Rs.84,07,953/- on 30.09.2019, but the same amount is incorrect as the opposite parties wrongly imposed the interest upon the petitioner. Nevertheless, the petitioner is ready to repay the outstanding amount in easy installments of 36 months, but the opposite parties are auctioning the mortgaged properties of the husband of the proprietor of the petitioner in lesser amount whereas the actual market value of the mortgaged properties is very high. The authority of the Bank has told the petitioner that the Bank has proceeded the auction of the mortgaged properties on 31.10.2019 and has received 25% of the bid amount. When the petitioner visited the Bank for knowing the said facts, employee of the Bank did not talk with the petitioner about the auction held on 31.10.2019. The petitioner also requested to the authority of the Bank to allow the petitioner to re-pay the outstanding loan amount in installments but no heed is paid.;