VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) Petitioners have challenged the order dated 22/2/2006 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, vide which appeal filed by M/s. Punjab and Sind Bank and another against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 20/1/2006 in Interim Appeal No. 927 of 2005 and consequential order passed on 23/1/2006 in SA No. 69 of 2005, was allowed.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that petitioner No. 1 is running business of commission agent in partnership with respondent No. 4 under the name and style of M/s. Partap Trading Company, Shop No. 18 New Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar city. He is also" a partner in another firm running under the name and style of M/s. Prabhat Trading Company from the same premises i.e. shop No. 18, New Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar City. Both the firms had availed overdraft limits from M/s. Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') for running of their business and in order to secure the repayment, the shop was mortgaged with the Bank.
(3.) It was the case of the petitioners that there was a dispute between petitioner No. 1 and his brother respondent No. 4 who was also partner in both the firms and in order to recover the dues respondent-Bank served a notice dated 22-5-2003 under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and rReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called "Securitisation Act, 2002") wherein the claim was that a sum of Rs. 1,96,952/- was due. Along with this notice another notice was also served on the same date under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation Act, 2002 for recovery of Rs. 8,16,213.09 paise. The petitioner firm paid a sum of Rs. 1, 11,210/- to the Bank on 17-1-2004, thus leaving behind a balance of Rs. 85,000/- against the first notice, whereas against the second notice, a sum of Rs. 4,59,790/- was paid.;