JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 01.02.2023 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereafter `the DRT') whereby the DRT dismissed the petitioner's miscellaneous application being MA/119/2022 in SA/113/2018

2. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid application, inter alia, praying that the direction be issued to respondent no.1 (hereafter `the Union Bank') to refund the entire bid amount of Rs.8.42 crores along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum in compliance with the earlier orders dated 12.09.2022 and 25.10.2022.

3. The Union Bank had provided cash credit facility to the extent of Rs.7.98 crores to respondent no.4 (hereafter `the Principal Borrower'). The said facility was secured by mortgage of the property described as Khasra No.150/79, Municipal No.XIV/11163-2, Block-D admeasuring 373 square yards located at Sidhipura, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereafter `the mortgaged property'). The repayment obligation of the Principal Borrower was also guaranteed by respondent nos.2 & 3 (hereafter `the Guarantors'). The Union Bank claims that the Principal Borrower had defaulted in its repayment obligations. Consequently, on 14.06.2017, the said account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

4. Thereafter, on 05.09.2017, the Union Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter `the SARFAESI Act') calling upon the Principal Borrower and the Guarantors to repay the outstanding amount quantified at Rs.8,39,22,454/- as on 04.09.2017.

5. The Guarantors claims that they did not receive the said notice. The demand raised by the Union Bank was not discharged. Accordingly, the Union Bank initiated steps for enforcement of its security interest in the mortgaged property. As the first step, on 09.01.2018, it issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 (hereafter `the Rules').

6. Thereafter, on 22.01.2018, the Union Bank filed an original application [OA/114/2018] under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereafter `RDB Act') for recovery of its dues. The said application was allowed by an order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the DRT and the Recovery Certificate was issued. The Union Bank states that the amounts were also outstanding in three other accounts, the repayment of which was guaranteed by the Guarantors. The Union Bank had also filed Original Applications [OA/115/2018 and OA/824/2018] in respect of two of those accounts. The amount outstanding in the third account, was duly guaranteed by respondent no.2. The Union Bank filed proceedings [OA/885/2018] for recovery of the amounts outstanding in that account as well.

7. The Union Bank also issued a sale notice dated 08.03.2018 for sale of the mortgaged property but the same did not fructify. Thereafter, the Union Bank issued another sale notice dated 07.05.2018. The Guarantors and the Principal Borrower (hereafter collectively referred to as `the Securitisation Applicants') filed a Securitisation Application [SA/113/2018] captioned Rajnish Gupta v. Corporation Bank under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, impugning the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also the steps taken pursuant thereto for taking possession of the mortgaged property. They, inter alia, sought that the auction of the mortgaged property, scheduled to be held on 24.05.2018, be cancelled and set aside. Similar applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act were also filed in respect of auctions relating to other properties that were mortgaged with the Union Bank in connection with the other accounts.

8. It is stated that the Securitisation Applications were