- (1.) The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20150/2013, questioning the steps taken by the respondent-Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') in its bid to realize its outstanding dues.
(2.) We have heard Mr. V.N. Bohra, the learned counsel for the appellants.
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts in bare essentials necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are that M/s Goyal Stone Crusher, a partnership firm, had availed financial accommodation from the respondent-Bank. Ravi Goyal (since deceased), the father of the appellants, according to them, was the borrower-cum-guarantor for the said loan. He expired on 31.03.2013. The appellants/writ-petitioners have averred that on 29.05.2013, the respondent-Bank issued a notice to the aforementioned firm under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act with a copy, amongst others, to their mother, Smt. Mintu Goyal, demanding repayment of an amount of Rs.6,04,61,723.12 with interest, conveying thereby as well that in case of its failure to do so, necessary action under Section 13(4) of the enactment would be taken. According to the appellants/writ-petitioners, though the respondent-Bank was aware that they were also the heirs and legal representatives of Ravi Goyal (since deceased), this notice was not addressed to them. On 22.07.2013, another notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the respondent-Bank, this time to the firm and also to them as well as their mother, Smt. Mintu Goyal requiring them to liquidate the outstanding amount, as mentioned therein, reiterating that on their failure to do so, necessary action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act would be taken. Thereby, they were also retrained from transferring by way of sale, lease or otherwise the secured assets, as detailed in Schedule 'C' to the notice, without obtaining written consent of the respondent-Bank in terms of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants/writ-petitioners averred that though by notice dated 22.07.2013, 60 days time was granted to discharge their liabilities, as referred to therein, the officers of the respondent-Bank before the expiry thereof, visited their residence and pressurised them to vacate the same. Eventually, on 14.10.2013 they submitted their representation/objection under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, detailing the illegalities in the process undertaken by the respondent-Bank in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. In its reply dated 21.10.2013, the respondent-Bank while asserting that the action taken had been in full compliance of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, indicated that the possession of the secured assets, meanwhile, had been delivered to it on 12.08.2013 and that vide notice dated 16.10.2013, auction sale thereof had been notified. Situated thus, the appellants/writ-petitioners approached this Court seeking its intervention in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.;