SAROJ ANIL GOYAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions are on board. Since the writ petitions arise from common set of facts, we have heard them together and propose to dispose it of by this common order.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 9779 of 2021 is at the instance of the debtor of the State Bank of India (hereafter "the borrower " for short), whereas Writ Petition Stamp No. 1445 of 2022 is at the instance of auction purchasers of the secured asset.

(3.) The secured asset was put up for auction by the secured creditor in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereafter "the 2002 Rules ", for short). The sale notice issued by the secured creditor was under challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai, (hereafter "the DRT-III ", for short) in Securitisation Application No. 139 of 2019 at the instance of the borrower. There was an initial round of litigation before this Court, wherein certain interim orders passed by the DRTIII were under challenge. Such writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 25/11/2021 with a direction upon the Presiding Officer of the DRT-III to decide Securitisation Application No. 139 of 2019 expeditiously. The Presiding Officer by an order dtd. 2/12/2021 has allowed the securitisation application holding that the secured creditor while proceeding for sale of the secured asset did not comply with the statutory mandate in Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules; however, it was observed that the order allowing the securitisation application was without prejudice to the right of the secured creditor to initiate fresh action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter "the SARFAESI Act " for short) in respect of the secured asset following due procedure.