R.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Initially aggrieved by the Judgment dated 16-8-2010, passed by a Single Judge of this court in two writ petitions, namely W.P. No. 36955/2009 and W.P. No. 29729/2009, whereby the Learned Single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions, the appellant has approached this court. However, with the change in events, with the auction and sale of the hotel owned by the appellant firm, the appellant has challenged the auction and the sale by the respondent No. 2, the Syndicate Bank, before this court.

2. This case has a rather checkered history: in order to construct a hotel, in 1998, the appellant-firm had borrowed Rs. 70 Lakhs from the respondent No. 2, the Syndicate Bank. For the purpose of securing the loan, the appellant-firm had mortgaged three of its properties with the Bank. However, according to the appellant, the Bank released Rs. 25 Lakhs in 1998 and another Rs. 25 Lakhs in 1999. Thus, in total, the Bank lent only an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs to the appellant-firm. Since the entire loan amount was not paid to the appellant-firm, it could neither complete the construction of the hotel, nor earn in its business. Till 2001 the appellant-firm regularly paid the loan installments; subsequently, due to huge losses, it became a defaulter.

3. Since the appellant could not repay the loan, the Bank filed an application, namely O.A. No. 471/2002, under Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore ('DRT' for short) for recovery of Rs. 79,25,643/-. By order dated 2-12-2004, the DRT allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 79,01,827/- with future interest @ 19% per annum compounded quarterly, from the date of the application, namely from 3-7-2002 till the date of the payment. The Bank was permitted to realize the amount by sale of Schedule 'A', 'B', 'C', the mortgaged property, and Schedule 'D', the hypothecated properties. Since this order was not challenged by either of the parties, it became final.

4. Despite the order dated 2-12-2004, the appellant kept on negotiating with the Bank to settle the loan account. On 8-8-2005, the Bank offered to settle the amount under its One Time Settlement Scheme. But as the appellant defaulted in making the repayment, the Bank withdrew the said One Time Settlement. Instead, on 8-4-2006, the Bank issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Securitization Act', for short) demanding a payment of a sum of Rs. 1,49,98,784/- within sixty days of the notice. Since the said demand could not be fulfilled, on 9-10-2006, the Bank issued a Possession Notice in respect of all the three properties forming security with the Bank.

5. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said Possession Notice, it challenged the same before the DRT, Bangalore. By order dated 15-3-2007, the DRT granted an interim stay against the Possession Notice on the condition that the appellant should deposit a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs with the Bank. But as the appellant defaulted in depositing the said amount, the interim stay was withdrawn.

6. Aggrieved by the said order withdrawing the interim order, the appellant filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 6894/2007 before this Court. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, by order dated 3-9-2007, the learned DRT dismissed the appellant's application challenging the Possession Notice. Consequently, by order dated 11-11-2008, the writ petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed as having become infructuous.

7. It seems that in 2009, the appellant and the Bank went back to settling the loan dispute through the One Time Settlement Scheme. For, on 3-9-009, the Bank sent a reminder to the appellant that although it was supposed to have paid the entire loan amount by 15-7-2009, but it had failed to do so. Therefore, the date for the payment is being extended