AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. P.Sunitha, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of sale notice dated 03.02.2022, issued by respondent No.1/South Indian Bank, proposing to hold auction sale of the schedule property on 24.02.2022.
It appears that petitioners are borrowers, who had availed loan from respondent No.1, but defaulted in repayment for which, respondent No.1 has initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). As a consequence, impugned sale notice dated 03.02.2022, has been issued. From the impugned sale notice, we find that outstanding dues of the petitioners has been quantified by respondent No.1 at Rs.16,20,33,049.21 as on 01.02.2022.
From the pleadings, we find that earlier also, sale notice was issued proposing to auction sale the schedule property on 06.12.2021.
Be that as it may, without entering into the contentious issues, we are of the view that petitioners have got an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy of filing securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail their statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within thirty days from today. Further, if the petitioners deposit 15% of the outstanding dues as claimed by respondent No.1 within the aforesaid period of thirty days, respondent No.1 shall not proceed further with the impugned sale notice dated 03.02.2022, which, in any event, would be subject to such securitisation application as may be filed by the petitioners. However, we make it clear that if there is any default on the part of the petitioners either in filing the securitisation application or in making the payment as above, it would be open to respondent No.1 to proceed against the petitioners for realization of the outstanding dues in accordance with law.
Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, also stand disposed of.
No costs.