B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard by consent.

3. Our judicial conscience shocks at the manner in which the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT” in short) has exercised the jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act” in short). The present litigation has a chequered history. This is a third round of litigation before this Court.

4. Respondent No. 1 has obtained cash credit facilities, bank guarantees as well as term loan aggregating to Rs. 1450 Lakhs from the Petitioner Bank. On Petitioner Bank sanctioning aforesaid facilities, the necessary hypothetication documents were entered into in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the Petition. It appears that from time to time, the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 1 had passed Resolution dated 25 May 2010 to extend the charge of the Petitioner on the said property. It is the case of the Petitioner that on Respondent No. 1 defaulting to make the payment of the dues, the account of Respondent No. 1 came to be d