Dr. Manjula Chellur, C.J.—These two appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 03.05.2013 in W.P. 10315 of 2013 and W.P. 9850 of 2013.

2. The controversy which got the attention of the Court where impugned judgment is coming from is whether a secured creditor who chooses course of action for enforcement of security in terms of provisions of securitization and reconstruction of financial asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) is entitled to publish the photograph(s) of the defaulting borrower(s)/guarantor(s) in newspapers/magazines etc. In both the matters the secured creditor was the State Bank of India. The stand of the borrowers was to the effect that publication of photograph(s) of the defaulting borrower(s)/guarantor(s) as a measure for recovery of loans has no legislative sanction, therefore, the secured creditors must be restrained from proceeding in that direction. According to them, the proposed act to publish photographs, names and addresses of the defaulting borrowers is a coercive step and it fall within the meaning of mischief as defined under Section 15 of the Contract Act 1872. They further con