RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing notice dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act, 2002") r/w Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2002") by which the respondent no. 3 - ICICI Bank Ltd. has taken symbolic possession of the immovable property pertaining to Flat No. B-8, 2nd Floor, Chandra Tower, Dimna Road, Jamshedpur.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid property was initially purchased by one Sanjiv Kumar Vig (the borrower) from M/s Chandra Awas Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed dated 02.04.2009 for a value of Rs. 8,33,940/- and came in possession of the said property. The petitioner purchased the said property from Sanjiv Kumar Vig vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.2012. The petitioner also took housing loan for the purchase of the said property from Canara Bank which was granted to him vide sanction letter no. 21 dated 27.12.2012. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 26.09.2018 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 r/w Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2002 was issued by the respondent no. 3 for taking symbolic possession of the said property. The petitioner was not aware that there was any encumbrance on the said property. In fact, he has been made to suffer due to the evil design of said Sanjiv Kumar Vig. Since the petitioner was neither the borrower nor the guarantor of the loan amounting to Rs. 26,92,257/- for recovery of which the impugned steps have been taken by the respondent-Bank, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned notice dated 26.09.2018.
(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors." reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held as under: "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective." ;