The court upheld the bank's actions under the Act, confirming that due process was followed in the recovery of the loan, dismissing the petition for lack of diligent prosecution by the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The matter relates to a property which was mortgaged to the Indian Bank. The bank took steps under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the due amount.

2. As on March 2025 the due amount was Rs.26,45,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-six crore forty-five lakh). The loan account was classified as non- performing asset (NPA) with effect from January 28, 2023. A statutory notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act was served upon the borrower on July 15, 2023 and July 17, 2023. Steps under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act was taken in July 2023 and a newspaper publication was made in October 2023.

3. The petitioner is currently aggrieved by the notice affixed on the wall of the subject premises dated June 24, 2025 directing the noticees to hand over possession of the property. The impugned notice mentions that July 9, 2025 is the date fixed for taking over possession of the secured asset with the help of the magistrate and the police.

4. The petitioner submits that no notice was served intimating her about the steps taken under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. The notice for handing over possession, though dated June 24, 2025, was affixed to the secured asset only on July 2, 2025 wherefrom the petitioner got knowledge of the same.

5. It has been submitted that despite Indian Bank knowing that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased mortgager, did not issue any notice to the petitioner. Violation of principle of natural justice has been pleaded. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned notice for taking over possession of the secured asset.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the various documents annexed to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner approached this Court on a number of times earlier.

7. Initially, a writ petition being WPA No.12679 of 2023 was filed challenging the notices issued by the bank under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). Vide order dated May 25, 2023 the Court was pleased to stay the subject proceeding under the 2002 Act. The writ petition however got dismissed on September 8, 2023 holding that the same became infructuous.

8. Second writ petition being WPA No.1599 of 2024 was filed challenging further steps taken by the bank to issue notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the 2002 Act. The Court vide order dated January 29, 2024 disposed of the writ petition directing the bank to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property till February 15, 2024 or until further order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal with the same relief as sought for in the writ petition within a fortnight from the said date.

9. The Court recorded that if any portion of the property had already been sold out, the same would be subject to the orders passed by the Tribunal, if approached by the petitioner. The Court also restrained the bank to issue sale certificate in favour of any third party till February 15, 2024 had the property been sold off in the meantime.

10. The petitioner failed to approach the Tribunal within the time period fixed by the Court and applied before this Court seeking extension of time to approach the Tribunal. The Court, vide order dated April 5, 2024, was pleased to modify the earlier direction passed on January 29, 2024 and extended the time limit for the petitioner to apply before the Tribunal by April 8, 2024. Status quo was directed to be maintained till April 12, 2024.

11. As the petitioner failed to apply before