- (1.) Challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the notice dated 31.12.2009, Annexure P.1 and possession notice dated 29.3.2010, Annexure P.4 and also order dated 8.7.2011, Annexure P.14.
(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioner No.1 is an Oil Company which is being run by its proprietor Shri Gurinder Singh i.e. petitioner No.2. It was sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.40 lacs by respondent No.4 Bank of India. The said loan was availed by mortgaging the property measuring 4 kanals 13 marlas, situated at Village Meharban, Rahon Road, Ludhiana. On account of default in making payments towards the loan account, respondent No.3 issued notice on 31.12.2009 to the petitioner-company under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) directing it to pay entire dues i.e. Rs.41,42,494.90 inclusive of interest applied upto 30.11.2009. According to the petitioner, the said notice is violative of Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 2.1.2010 undertaking to regularize the account in near future. It also filed a detailed reply dated 23.3.2010 to the notice. Copies of the representation and reply are attached as Annexures P.2 and P.3 respectively.
(3.) Thereafter, the respondent-Bank issued possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 29.3.2010, Annexure P.4. The Bank also got published a notice in the newspaper on 4.4.2010 for public auction of the property of petitioner No.2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) respondent No.1 dated 15.4.2010. Notice was issued to the respondent Bank and direction was given to the petitioner to approach the Bank for compromise. The Bank was directed to serve advance notice of 15 days to the petitioner if it decides to proceed as per the SARFAESI Act. Copy of the order dated 7.5.2010 passed by respondent No.1 is Annexure P.6. Reply was filed on behalf of the Bank. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interim application being I.A.No.86 of 2011 praying for stay of the operation of fresh notice dated 28.1.2011 passed by the respondent Bank for taking physical possession of the mortgaged property. The petitioner referred to earlier order passed by DRT-II dated 7.5.2010 and showed its bonafides and offered to pay Rs.10 lacs within 10 days and the remaining amount within a year. Respondent No.1 while deciding the above application passed the order dated 11.2.2011 staying all further proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 pursuant to notice dated 28.1.2011. The petitioner was also directed to approach the Bank with a proposal alongwith the initial amount. In compliance with the above order, the petitioner got a demand premium cheque prepared but the bank did not accept the same. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing before the DRT for 20.4.2011 wherein respondent No.3 made a statement that the petitioner failed to comply with the order of the Court and prayed that the stay granted be vacated. The petitioner controverted the statement. Respondent No.1 vacated the stay granted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.4.2011, Annexure P.10. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.235/2011 in SA No.186 of 2010 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi (DRAT) and prayed for stay of the impugned order dated 20.4.2011. After hearing the parties, the DRAT at Delhi vide order dated 16.5.2011 restored the stay already vacated and directed the parties to appear before respondent No.1 on 8.7.2011. Copy of the order dated 16.5.2011 is at Annexure P.12. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 and paid the Banker cheque for an amount of Rs.3,58,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.1 on 8.7.2011 and stated about the deposit of the amount but respondent No.3 denied the same. Respondent No.1 passed the order dated 8.7.2011, Annexure P.14 stating that since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, the Bank was free to proceed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the DRAT at Delhi against the order dated 8.7.2011 by filing an appeal dated 8.7.2011. Since there is no Presiding Officer at the Tribunal at Delhi, the appeal is not being heard. Hence this petition.;