Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of Demand Notice dated 1.6.13 issued by the Authorised Officer of the Respondent -Bank of Baroda ("the Respondent Bank"), under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act, 2002"), communication dated 14.8.13 of the Authorised Officer of the Bank rejecting petitioners' representation/objections to the said Demand Notice dated 1.6.13 and the action of the Respondent Bank in classifying the petitioners' loan account as "Non Performing Asset" (NPA). That apart, the petitioners have prayed that the Respondent Bank may be restrained from initiating any fresh action against all or any of subject immovable properties of the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
(2.) THE relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner No. 3 -M/s. U.N. Automobiles Private Limited ('the Petitioner Company'), a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, was granted various credit facilities by way of financial assistance by the Respondent Bank against the security interest created by it. The credit facility by way of financial assistance granted by the Respondent Bank were also secured by personal guarantee of the petitioner No. 1 & 2, who had created security interest by way of equitable mortgage of their properties. The Petitioner Company defaulted in repayment of secured debt and therefore, the loan account was classified as NPA on 29.8.12 and thereafter, vide Demand Notice dated 6.10.12, the Petitioner Company was required to discharge in full its liabilities to the Respondent Bank, within 60 days from the date of the notice. The legality of the proceedings taken by the Respondent Bank for enforcement of the security interest as aforesaid, was questioned by the petitioners by way of S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 8373/13 "Mr. Amit Prakash Gupta & Anr. vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.", before the Jaipur Bench of this court. On 28.5.13, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Bank, made a statement before the court that Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 6.10.12 as also the notice dated 12.4.13 demanding possession of the secured assets have since been withdrawn by the Respondent Bank, under the letter dated 28.5.13. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the Respondent Bank, the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the court as having rendered infructuous and it was ordered that the interim order dated 24.5.13 passed by the court shall also ceases to be operative. The Respondent Bank was extended liberty to take steps for recovery of the outstanding amount against the petitioners in accordance with law. Thereafter, vide separate Demand Notice dated 1.6.13, issued by the Authorised Officer of the Respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioners herein, the borrower and the guarantors, were directed to discharge the demand raised aggregating Rs. 52,41, 12,611/ - alongwith interest @ 15.75%, calculated at monthly rest w.e.f. 1.6.13, within a period of 60 days. In response to the notice, the petitioners submitted Representation -cum -Objections to the Demand Notice in terms of provisions of sub -section 3A of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Representation -cum -Objections submitted by the petitioners were rejected by the Authorised Officer of the Respondent Bank vide communication dated 14.8.13.
(3.) IN these circumstances, aggrieved by the action of the Respondent Bank in initiating the fresh proceedings for enforcement of the security interest under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of this court, registered as S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 15754/13, on 31.8.13. However, a coordinate Bench of this court at Jaipur Bench, vide order dated 9.9.13, directed to transfer the present petition to the Principal seat of the High Court at Jodhpur observing that the matter is primarily against the orders and the action taken by the Respondent Bank at Udaipur.;