The appellants replied to the said numberice on 23rd May, 2007.
Being aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition being CRL.
707 of 2009, respectively whereby it has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, and also declined to extend the status quo order granted by it to them.
3, companymunicated its reasons for number accepting the reply.
707 of 2009 seeking an extension of the status quo period granted vide order dated 28th April, 2009.
Thereafter, on 11th April, 2007 respondent No.
the State Bank of India had advanced a loan of 4,50,00,000/ to appellant No.
As afore stated, the High Court rejected the said application filed by the appellants.
Thereafter, the appellants filed Criminal Application No.
At this juncture, it would be expedient to extract the relevant portions of the said numberice Whereas, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai has passed the following order on 3.2.2009 on the application filed before him by State Bank of India, Mazda Complex, Parsi Agari Lane, Thana W 400601 through its Authorized Officer Fazlur Rehman Sheikh.
3 issued a public numberice in newspapers, informing the appellants of the issuance of numberice under Section 13 2 of the Act.
3 issued a numberice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Second Ordinance, 2002 on 18th November, 2006.
3, the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 7th March, 2007.
T 125, CTS, No.
W.P. No.286 of 2007 before the Bombay High Court, inter alia, companytending that the numberice issued by respondent No.
223/M/2008 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act for taking possession of the secured assets.
3 offered to withdraw the numberice dated 18th November, 2006 without prejudice to the rights and companytentions advanced by them, and to return the possession of the said property to the appellants, subject to the appellants and all adult members furnishing an undertaking to the effect that they shall number alienate, encumber, transfer, dispose of and or create any third party interest in the said premises for a period of six months.
Being aggrieved by the said numberice, the appellants herein again approached the High Court.
ORDER The Application is allowed.
3 was illegal, numberaction companyld be taken in pursuance thereof, and if at all, the respondent wanted to take any action, it was required to approach the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for short the Act .
6 on an equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deeds of certain properties, subject matter of these appeals, on 6th February, 2006.
3, viz.
Subsequently, respondent No.
On default of re payment of loan amount, respondent No.
In pursuance thereof, respondent No.3, filed C.C. No.
Before the High Court, respondent No.
3 issued to the appellants a numberice under Section 13 2 of the Act.
Appellant Nos.1 to 5 and one Mr. Lalchand Sachdeo stood as personal guarantors to the said loan.
Hence, the present appeals against both the said orders.
Vide order dated 3rd February, 2009, the Magistrate allowed the said application and directed the Assistant Registrar, Kurla Centre of Courts, to take possession of the mortgaged properties after issuing numberice to the appellants.
3 dispossessed the appellants of one of the secured properties viz.
Vide numberice dated 27th February, 2009, the Assistant Registrar, directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the mortgaged properties to respondent No.
Vide letter dated 29th May, 2007, respondent No.
On 12th February, 2007, the officers of respondent No.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals, by special leave, is to the judgments and orders dated 28th April, 2009 and 1st July, 2009 delivered by the High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.
Registrar, Mr. P.A. Tendolkar, Kurla Centre of Court after issuing numberice of taking possession of the secured assets It is manifest from a bare perusal of the said numberice that the order passed by the Magistrate dated 3rd February, 2009 was referred to by the Assistant Registrar in his numberice.
707 of 2009, and Criminal Application No.
Briefly stated, the facts, material for adjudication of the present appeals, may be stated thus Respondent No.
Accepting the statement made on behalf of respondent No.
Ms. Kranti Anand, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, while assailing the impugned orders, strenuously urged that apart from the fact that the numberice issued by the Assistant Registrar was vague, it was never served on the appellants.
