D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4030 of 2014 dated 20 th January, 2015, whereby the writ petition, preferred by the original petitioners (appellants herein), was dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 2002" for short), the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix: · Following is the sanctioned limit, as per Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal: JUDGEMENT_93_LAWS(JHAR)4_2016.jpg · It appears from the letter at Annexure 1 to the memo of this L.P.A. that there are terms and conditions for repayment also and the rate of interest is 14.20% per annum, as per paragraph no. 3 of the terms and conditions at Annexure A to the letter at Annexure 1. · It appears that after taking a loan of sizable amount, some meager amount was paid and sizable amount remained outstanding and, hence, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was issued to the appellants on 15 th May, 2014 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A.) and the outstanding amount was at Rs.4,41,27,461.92 paise as on 15 th May, 2014 and accrued interest with effect from 1st March, 2014. · There is no reply of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002. · One letter dated 5th June, 2014 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this L.P.A.) was written by the appellants for Renewal Project Report of Black Diamond Techno Pvt. Ltd. along with Action Plan, wherein desire was shown by these appellants to sell the property, which is in the shape of vehicles, spare parts, tools and other equipments, belonging to someone else i.e. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. Thus, a promise was given to sell somebody's else property and to make payment of Rs.108 Lacs, which was rightly declined by the Bank vide communication dated 16 th June, 2014 (Annexure 8 to the memo of this L.P.A.). · Thereafter, possession notice was issued by the respondents on 16 th July, 2014 under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Annexure 5 to the memo of this L.P.A.) to be made effective with effect from 25th July, 2014. Thereafter, possession of immovable property of the appellants was taken over with effect from 25 th July, 2014 and with respect to certain movable property symbolic possession was also take over later on. · Auction notice was also issued thereafter on 28 th November, 2014 and ultimately the property was auctioned on 29 th December, 2014 to the highest bidder, but, as the stay has been granted by this Court vide order dated 1st April, 2015, the sale has not been finalized in favour of the highest bidder. · These appellants (original petitioners) have challenged the notice dated 15th May, 2014 issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 as also the notice dated 16 th July, 2014 issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by learned counsel for appellants: · Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is a breach of Section 13(3-A) of the Act, 2002 and there is no efficacious alternative remedy available to these appellants for the breach of the aforesaid Section. · It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the reply given by respondent-Bank on 16th June, 2014 (Annexure 8 to the memo of this L.P.A.) to the reply/ representation given by these appellants dated 5 th June, 2014 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this L.P.A.) was in violation of Section 13(3-A) of the Act, 2002. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by these appellants bearing W.P.(C) No. 4030 of 2014. · Learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the decisions, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, as reported in (2004)4 SCC 311 as well as in the case of Mathew Verghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and ors. , as reported in (2014)5 SCC 610 , submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and judicial pronouncements, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 20th January, 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 4030 of 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside. ;