AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ghulam Mohammed, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in accepting the tender of the second respondent and finalizing the same with regard to the properties belonging to the petitioners in pursuance of the public notice dated 22-7-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.
The petitioner borrowed a term loan of Rs. 44.00 lakhs on 26-4-1999 from the first respondent-Bank and mortgaged his properties. As the petitioners could not pay the instalment due, the first respondent-Bank issued demand (sic. public) notices dated 19-1-2008 and 22-7-2008 u/s 13(4) of the Securtization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act") proposing to conduct sale of the mortgaged properties.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the first respondent-Bank without issuing notice u/s 13(2) of the Act straight away initiated steps u/s 13(4) of the Act by publishing public notices dated 19-1-2008 and 22-7-2008 for sale of the property, which is illegal and arbitrary.
In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent-Bank, it is stated that the notice issued u/s 13(2) of the Act is served on the borrowers and guarantors and that they failed to pay the amount in question within sixty days and, thereafter provisions u/s 13(4) of the Act are initiated.
Be that as it may, this Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners are questioning the legality or otherwise of the notices dated 19-1-2008 and 22-7-2008 issued u/s 13(4) of the Act against which they are having an efficacious and effective alternative remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the Act. Without availing the said remedy, they have straightaway approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. Hence, we do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from today. It is made clear that since the matter is pending before this Court, the said period shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation u/s 14 of the Limitation Act. There shall be no order as to costs.