Raveendran C.V. vs Authorised Officer

T.B. Radhakrishnan, J.—We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Bank. As can be noticed from paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the Bank is of the view that the sale for which publication was already made has lapsed and there has to be re-publication. The learned Single Judge has directed that confirmation of any such re-published sale shall be done only after obtaining further orders of this Court. The appeal is only against an interim order.

The learned counsel for the appellants points out Section 13(4)(d) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which enables a person to wipe off the liability of a secured creditor. If the appellants have the eligibility, and are desirous to do so, they may do so, without trying to cling on to technicalities, in attempt to delay recovery. Though there is a provision for notice in that Section, the very fact that the petitioners have instituted the writ petition from which this appeal arises, itself shows that they have sufficient notice. No plea to the contrary deserves cognizance in discretionary writ jurisdiction. If they have bona fides to wipe off the outstanding by paying off the secured creditor, it is up to them to do so. We do not find any jurisdictional, legal or factual infirmity warranting interference with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions in the writ petition and to the procedure indicated above.