The court emphasized the legislative intent to minimize judicial intervention until the stage of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and highlighted the availability of statutory remedies under the Act, holding that the petitioner's remedy under Section 17 was premature and that the court should not entertain the petition at this stage.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 34811/2023 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 9155/2023 and CM APPL. 34810/2023

3. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:

"a. Pass a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari while quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice under Section 13(2) issued by Respondent No. 1 dated 02.05.2023, and any proceedings emanating therefrom with respect to tile said property of the Petitioner; and

b. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the said Property being the Second Floor alongwith 1/3rd undivided rights in the roof of property bearing No. C - 3/ 15, Ashok Vihar, Phase - 2, Delhi- 110052 in any manner whatsoever."

4. Mr.Sanjeev Ralli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 02.05.2023 is issued without jurisdiction and even otherwise the same is completely illegal and improper. According to him, the instant writ petition is maintainable on the ground that the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter `SARFAESI Act') are not attracted. According to him, for taking an action under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, there has to be a `security interest' created in favour of any `secured creditor'. He states that it is only the `security interest' which can be enforced under the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that in the instant case, the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a director. He also states that the second floor of the property mortgaged to the respondent no.1 belongs to the petitioner as per the registered Sale Deed dated 23.01.2019. He has also taken this court through public notice issued in January, 2022 which has been placed on record as Annexure-P6.

6. According to the learned senior counsel, the said notice was pasted on the property in question which was duly replied vide legal notice dated 11.01.2022. In terms of paragraph nos.5 and 6 thereof, it was categorically stated that the petitioner i.e. Ms. Vanya Jain is the lawful owner of the property bearing no.C - 3/15, Ashok Vihar, Phase- 2, New Delhi-110052 and is under lawful possession of the said property.

7. According to the averments made in the legal notice dated 11.01.2022, it is submitted that the petitioner has never created any charge over the said property. It was also stated that the petitioner neither took any loan from respondent no.1 nor stood as a guarantor in any other loan agreement. For the sake of clarity, paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the legal notice dated 11.01.2022, which was sent in reply to the public notice are reproduced as under:

"5. That our client and his wife Smt Vanya Jain are the lawful owners of the property bearing no. C-3/15, Ashok ViharPhase-2 Delhi and are under lawful possession of the same. Our client or his wife have never created any kind of charge over the said property. They have neither taken any kind of Loan from you noticee nor are they guarantors in any other Loan Agreement.

6. That the contents of the said notice are patently false, fictitious, malafide and devoid of any substance whatsoever. Our Client has never taken any Loan from you noticee M/s Ambit Finvest Pvt. Ltd. secured or unsecured, in his own name of in the name of any company. There is no charge on property bearing no. of C-3/15, Ashok Vihar Phase-2 Delhi. You have pasted the notice outside the property of our client deliberately to cause him disrepute. Your act of pasting the notice without any substance has caused extreme harassment to our client, he has received calls and messages from his neighbours asking if he has defaulted in paying the loan. Our client has become the topic of gossip in the society solely on a