M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notice dated 5.6.2007 (P -14), issued by the Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, Branch Office, Majitha Mandi, Amritsar (respondent No. 3), which refers to the demand notice dated 27.7.2003, issued under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'the SRFAESI Act') calling upon the petitioners to discharge in full a sum of Rs. 4,89,57,433/ -(Rupees Four crores eighty nine lacs fifty seven thousands four hundreds thirty three only) along with interest thereon, which has not been paid and possession of various properties mortgaged with the Union Bank of India (respondent No. 2) was proposed to be taken. A further prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 13.6.2007 (P -15) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') and order dated 19.6.2007 (P -17) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Appellate Tribunal'), imposing the condition of deposit of Rs. 1.25 crores by 10.7.2007. Still further another prayer made is for issuance of direction to the Tribunal to hear Securitisation Appeal No. 16 of 2007, filed by the petitioners, pending for 10.7.2007 as well as O.A. No. 597 of 2001, filed by the Union Bank of India (respondent No. 2) against the petitioners and borrowers. As an interim measure prayer for injunction has been made staying final adjudication of the appeal i.e. S.A. No. 16 of 2007 and O.A. No. 597 of 2001 and that the Union Bank of India - respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be restrained from proceeding under the SRFAESI Act.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that M/s Vikrant Overseas is a proprietary concern of Shri Devinder Singh (petitioner No. 1), who was carrying on the business in Amritsar. Sarvshri Surjit Singh and Arjinder Singh (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) representatives of Late Smt. Bhagwant Kaur, Pritam Singh and Tejinder Singh (Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5) are stated to be the guarantors to secure various credit facilities those have been sanctioned by the respondent Union Bank of India to M/s Vikrant Overseas somewhere in 1997. The respondent Bank sanctioned to M/s Vikrant Overseas the following credit facilities: (i) Packing Credit Limit: Rs. 25.00 lacs (ii) FDBP: Rs. 180.00 lacs (iii) Cash Credit Pledge: Rs. 100.00 lacs (iv) ILC: Rs. 150.00 lacs Total Rs. 455.00 lacs
(3.) The loan was not repaid by M/s Vikrant Overseas and the respondent Bank filed an application bearing O.A. No. 597 of 2001, under Sec. 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1992, before the Tribunal, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,20,22,586/ -. The petitioners are stated to have filed written statement in the aforementioned original application taking various grounds as detailed in the petition. It has also been claimed that M/s Vikrant Overseas has discharged the entire liability. However, on 9.1.2007 (P -7 to P -11), respondent No. 3, in reference to the earlier notice dated 24.7.2003 (P -6) under Sec. 13 of the SRFAESI Act, issued further notices to the petitioners for taking possession of the assets/properties belonging to the petitioners and lying mortgaged with the respondent Bank, to discharge the full amount of Rs. 4,89,57,433/ -without prejudice to O.A. No. 597 of 2001. The petitioners have also filed appropriate application before the Tribunal. Since the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 1917 of 2007 in this Court in which initially notice of motion and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. The said writ petition was later on disposed of vide order dated 2.3.2007 on an application filed by the respondent Bank, inasmuch as, by that time the Tribunal had started functioning and there was no room to continue their grievance before this Court. On 23.3.2007, Securitization Application No. 16 of 2007 (P -12), which was filed by the petitioners, was taken up by the Tribunal and it ordered that in case the respondent Bank decides to take possession of the properties in question, it would serve seven days advance notice through the Tribunal (P -13). No reply to the aforementioned application is stated to have been filed by the respondent Bank. On 5.6.2007, another notice was sent by respondent No. 3 to the petitioners (P -14), which has been impugned in the instant petition. The petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal seeking ad - interim stay, inasmuch as, the respondent Bank has not served notice of 7 days through the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, did not grant interim relief and declined the same vide impugned order dated 13.6.2007 (P -15). Against the order dated 13.6.2007, the petitioners filed an appeal No. 104 of 2007, under Sec. 18 of the SRFAESI Act, before the Appellate Tribunal (P -16). The Appellate Tribunal passed a conditional order dated 19.6.2007 directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores for considering the appeal on merit. The aforementioned amount was required to be deposited by 10.7.2007 (P -17). In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present petition impugning notice dated 5.6.2007 (P -14), order dated 13.6.2007, passed by the Tribunal (P -15) and order dated 19.6.2007, passed by the Appellate Tribunal (P -17).;