RAJESH BHARDWAJ,J. - (1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 16.8.2017 bearing no. SARB/IB/329 (Annexure P-8) and further for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents no.1 to 4 to comply and act upon the letter bearing no. SARB/IB/817 dated 27.2.2017 (Annexure P-7). It has been further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition the respondents be restrained from confirming the sale as well as not to change the nature of the property auctioned i.e. plot no.9 measuring 695 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No.54//25/1, 57//5/1, khata no.566/587, 567/588 situated at Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana and plot bearing no.9 measuring 100 sq. yards bearing Khasra No.25/1, Khata no.294/334 as mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 situated at Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana.
(2.) As per the facts narrated in the petition, respondent no.3 i.e. State Bank of India Branch Link Road, near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana advanced a financial assistance i.e. cash credit (Hypothecation) amount limit of Rs.4,60,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs and Sixty Thousands only) cash credit and Rs.12,40,000/- (Rs.Twelve Lacs and Forty Thousand only) to the petitioner no.1 firm and petitioners no.2 and 3 stood as guarantors by mortgaging their landed properties i.e. plot bearing no.9 measuring 695 sq. yards and plot bearing no.9 measuring 100 sq. yards. It has further been spelled out that at the time of advancing the loan petitioner no.1 firm was a partnership concern whereas w.e.f. 30.4.2016 it became the proprietorship concern and Sh. Naveen Kumar became its sole proprietor. The relevant document in this regard is annexed as Annexure P-1.
(3.) It has been further contended that petitioner firm was regularly paying the installments as agreed upon in the agreement but without any rhyme and reason the accounts of petitioner firm were declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA) by the respondents in violation of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The respondent bank while initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act (herein after to be referred to as the Act) issued a demand notice dated 17.10.2012 under Section 13(2) of the Act vide which a demand of Rs.13,82,826.10P (Rs. Thirteen Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six and Paise Ten only) was raised. A copy of the same is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. It has further been contended that the outstanding amount shown in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is Rs.13,82,826.10 P, whereas the financial assistance advanced was Rs.17,00,000 (Rs. Seventeen Lacs only) and hence there was no occasion with the respondents to declare account of the petitioner firm as N.P.A. It is further contended that the petitioner firm approached the respondent authorities for settlement under the One Time Settlement Scheme (O.T.S) on 15.10.2013 by offering an amount of Rs.14,32,826.10P but the same was rejected. Having rejected the offer of Scheme of the petitioner firm the respondent bank made a publication for the E-auction of the mortgaged properties on 29.10.2013 for carrying out sale of the same on 2.12.2013. It had been asserted that the outstanding amount was shown to be Rs.24,99,000/- and the reserve price of the mortgaged properties was shown as Rs.47,26,000/- in respect of plot measuring 695 sq. yards and Rs.11,90,000/- in respect of the plot measuring 100 sq. yards, which according to the petitioners were on a very lower side. It has further been asserted that though the auction of plot measuring 100 sq. yards was sufficient enough for the recovery of the total outstanding dues but the respondent bank in a highly malafide manner carried out auction of both the mortgaged properties totally in violation of the statutory provisions.;