- (1.) INITIALLY , the writ petition was filed seeking quashing of letter dated 22.06.2009, whereby the restructuring proposal of the company namely, M/s. National Steel Furniture was rejected and the respondentbank directed the petitioners to submit a compromise proposal. Subsequently, the prayer clause in the writ petition was permitted to be amended by incorporating the prayer seeking a direction upon the respondents to issue "No Dues Certificate" and to return the excess amount paid by the petitioners and to return the land deed, which was deposited in the bank as security.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioners took cash credit limit facility for Rs.10 Lacs from Canara Bank. After 15.05.2007, when the last cheque was issued/cleared by the respondentCanara Bank, the petitioners sought renewal of their account in September, 2007 however, such request was turned down. The petitioners made representations and requested to provide restructured loan of Rs.5 lacs however, notice dated 14.05.2008 was issued to the petitioners for payment of loan amount. The petitioners vide letter dated 10.06.2008 showed their willingness to repay the balance amount in installments and they requested for providing fresh credit limit of Rs.5 lacs under the rehabilitation scheme. However, a demand notice dated 25.11.2008 was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their representation on 15.12.2008 seeking withdrawal of demand notice dated 25.11.2008. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank vide letter dated 15.05.2009 directed the petitioners to submit plan for repayment of the debt amount and to disclose the source of income. The petitioners submitted their proposal for restructuring of the loan on 09.02.2009 and vide letter dated 16.06.2009, the petitioners were asked to furnish further details for restructuring proposal however, the petitioners' proposal for restructuring the loan account was turned down on 22.06.2009 and the petitioners were directed to give compromise proposal. The petitioners thereafter, submitted another representation on 30.06.2009 showing their willingness to pay the debt amount in monthly installments of Rs.25,000/ per month. During the pendency of the writ petition, a possession notice dated 11.09.2009 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the respondentCanara Bank, which was impugned by filing I.A. No.2838 of 2009.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed raising an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for enforcing security interest created by the guarantor namely, Sushila Devi Pandit. On 01.04.2008, the loan account was classified as nonperforming asset and accordingly, a demand notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 25.11.2008 to the petitioners and guarantor simultaneously. The petitioners and the guarantor namely, Sushila Devi Pandit willfully defaulted in the payment of the outstanding debt amount. Though the petitioners were required to submit compromise proposal on or before 26.06.2009, they submitted representation on 30.06.2009 which were only reiteration of the restructuring proposal submitted by them, which was already rejected vide letter dated 22.06.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties.;