Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 being the directors of R. Piyarelall Import & Export Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "said Company"). The petitioners no. 5 & 6 are the guarantors of the financial assistance received by the Company from the State Bank of India / respondent no. 1. The main prayer in the writ petition is for an injunction restraining the respondent authorities from giving any effect to a letter dated 19.11.2014 by which the respondent no. 1 has alleged breach on the part of the petitioners of the terms of the loan covenants entered with the State Bank of India and has threatened to publish photographs, names and addresses of the petitioners in leading newspapers.
(2.) From the statements made in the writ petition it appears that the Company obtained credit facilities for its business from SBI/respondent no. 1 and the financial assistance granted to the company was enhanced from time to time; the last revision being made in 2012. From the writ petition, it is evident that no statements have been made with regard to the alleged defaults of the loan covenants on the part of the Company save and except the Company receiving a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 (SARFAESI) on 19th June 2014 and a representation being filed in response thereto by the Company on 16th August 2014. In the aforesaid notice the respondent bank has alleged that the Company has acknowledged subsistence of the liability in respect of the credit facilities granted to the Company by executing confirmation of balance and revival letters from time to time. In the representation the Company has pointed to the alleged failure of the respondent no. 1 bank is performing its obligations in terms of the contract and the filing of a civil suit for the same in this Court in 2014. The representation does not address the specific point of the admitted liability of the Company to the bank or any steps taken by the Company towards its repayment obligation.
(3.) Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits that his client would be seriously prejudiced if the threat contained in the impugned letter dated 19th November, 2014 is carried out and the petitioners' photographs published in newspapers. He submits that unlike other cases, the petitioners have not been declared as wilful defaulters under the RBI Guidelines/Master Circular and in the absence of such, no coercive measures can be taken against his clients. He further submits that an application has been taken out by the petitioners, which is presently pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and a suit has also been filed against the respondent no. 1 in this Court. He relies upon a Division Bench Judgement of this Court delivered on 5th May, 2016 reported in AIR 2016 Cal 281 which considered Rule 8 of the SARFAESI Rules as to whether there is any requirement for issuing notice to the general public in relation to a defaulting borrower and whether the aforesaid would entail publication of photographs of the concerned borrowers.;