The Court: This new motion was heard over three days. As all the relevant papers are on record, I think it fit, not to invite any affidavits and dispose of this application on the existing papers, by this order.

2. The plaintiffs are guarantors. The borrower was the fourth defendant, which is now in liquidation. The lender was the first defendant bank.

3. Ms. Sikdar for the Official Liquidator submitted that this suit was incompetent as no leave under section 446 [1] of the Companies Act, 1956 was taken before institution of the suit. The reply of Mr. Reetobrata Mitra, learned advocate for the plaintiffs, to this, in my opinion is correct. The fourth defendant is a proforma defendant and no reliefs are claimed against them in this suit. Therefore, no leave is required. This is a prima facie finding.

4. Now, the first defendant bank, acting under section 5 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI], assigned the "loans" of the fourth defendant to the second defendant. This assignment was made on 30th March, 2011.

5. There is no dispute with this proposition that once this kind of an assignment is made th