The said action of the Bank, as also the vires of the SARFAESI Act, were challenged by the respondent partnership firm and its sister companycern by way of two separate writ petitions, being Writ Petition Nos.46328 and 46329 of 2002, in which an interim stay of all further proceedings under the said Act was granted on 27th December, 2002.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Bank filed Writ Appeal No.926 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 1st September, 2008, against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Since, despite such liberty, the respondent firm did number approach the DRT, the Bank took a decision to sell the secured assets of the respondent firm.
After hearing the parties, the High Court refused to grant any interim relief and posted the writ petition for final disposal.
At that stage, negotiations were held between the parties for a One Time Settlement, which also failed, causing the Bank to issue a sale numberice dated 26th July, 2007, inviting sealed tenders for the sale of the secured assets of the firm.
The said writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 18th September, 2007, and was disposed of in the absence of the companynsel for the Bank with liberty to the respondent firm to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Madurai.
The same was admitted and all proceedings in S.A. No.74 of 2007 were stayed.
The review petition filed by the Bank before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was companysequently rendered infructuous and was dismissed on 23rd June, 2008.
104 of 2007.
As the respondent and its sister companycern did number respond to the said demand numberices, the appellant Bank invoked Section 13 4 of the above Act and took possession of the secured assets on 4th December, 2002.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent firm, along with M s. Ashok Woodworks, filed SARFAESI Application No.74 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Madurai for setting aside the sale numberice dated 26th July, 2007, on the selfsame cause of action.
The said writ petitions were ultimately heard and dismissed by a companymon order on 23rd April, 2004, with liberty to the respondent firm to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the DRT , within 30 days.
The appellant Bank filed Review Petition No.165 of 2007, praying for recall of the order dated 18th September, 2007, by which the writ petition had been disposed of in its absence.
The respondent firm and its sister companycern, M s. Ashok Woodworks, which is also a partnership firm, availed of various loans from the appellant Bank which were secured by movable and immovable assets.
Despite being informed of the pendency of the writ petition for the selfsame reliefs, the said Tribunal by its order dated 7th September, 2007, directed the Bank to defer the proposed sale which was scheduled to be held on 7th September, 2007.
The same was challenged by the respondent firm on 18th August, 2007, in Writ Petition No.27472 of 2007 on the ground that it was unable to move the DRT in view of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
Pursuant to the said order, the sealed tenders were opened on 8th October, 2007, and 3 of the 5 properties were sold and the same was recorded by the DRT.
Subsequently, despite the pendency of the review petition, the respondent firm withdrew S.A. No.74 of 2007, and filed a fresh application being A. No.
The appellant Bank thereupon filed Civil Writ Petition No.1392 of 2007 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging the filing of S.A. No.74 of 2007.
On 6th October, 2007, the appellant Bank was permitted to open the sealed tenders which it had received pursuant to the sale numberice dated 26th July, 2007, subject to the companydition that the sale effected would be subject to the companyfirmation of the Court.
The loanee firms having defaulted in repayment of the loans and since their accounts became Non Performing Assets hereinafter referred to as NPA , the Bank initiated action against them under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act and issued separate demand numberices to the respondent partnership firm and its sister companycern under Section 13 2 thereof on 17th September, 2002, and 21st September, 2002, for the recovery of Rs.1,56,47,638/and Rs.1,40,18,468.36, respectively.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted in both the Special leave petitions.
