INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) A common order is being passed in respect of both the writ applications as noted in the previous order dated 21st August, 2014 in W.P. No. 788 of 2013. The present petitioner who is the defaulting borrower has prayed for writ of mandamus to cancel the demand notices, possession notices and also to rescind the proposed e -auction sale notice as appeared in the newspapers. The subject matter of writ petition no. 787 of 2014 is the ground floor along with the car parking space of a multistoried building and in W.P. no. 788 of 2014 it is the first floor of the said multistoried building. It has been duly described in the e -auction notice issued by the bank. There is no dispute regarding the description of the property.
(2.) IN both the writ applications the taking of loan is admitted. There is also no dispute regarding the calculation of interest etc. It has been claimed by the bank that the assets have been declared as non -performing assets long ago. But there is dispute as raised by the present writ petitioner in view of the internal circulation of the Reserve Bank of India given to the banks. It was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner in both the cases that no notice was served on the writ petitioner under Rule 8 Sub -Rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter called is the said Rule), that the proposals for settlement is pending with the bank and that the writ Court had every jurisdiction to cancel the notices of the e -auction sale. On the point of pendency of the settlement proposal, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions: (i) AIR 2007 Patna Page 237 (M/s. Shivam Traders and Ors. vs. Bank of Baroda and Ors.), a Single Bench decision; and (ii) 2013(1) D.R.T.C. 259 (P&H) (Kumar Hotels and Restaurant vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.), a Division Bench decision; On the point of notice under Rule 8(6) of the said Rule of 2002, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions: (i) 2011(1) D.R.T.C. 528 (Ker) (K.R.S. Latex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Federal Bank Ltd.); and (ii) 2011(2) D.R.T.C. 825 (Guj) (Kanha International through Proprietor and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.);
(3.) IT may be mentioned that in the decision of Kerala High Court the decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court as reported in (2005) 125 Comp. Cas. 676 (Manoj D. Kapasi vs. Union of India) was referred to. Regarding fixation of valuation of reserved price the learned Counsel cited the decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court as reported in AIR 2009 Orissa 147 (Swastik Agency and Ors. vs. State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar & Ors.).;