JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. These three petitions raise common issues and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue is with regard to the meaning of the word "borrower" as appearing in Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

2. According to the petitioners, the word "borrower" as appearing in the said Section 13 (2) and as defined in Section 2 (f) of the said Act cannot extend and does not extend to include legal representatives of the original borrower. According to them, the expression relates only to the persons who took the loan or who were guarantors for the loan. It does not extend to their heirs or successors or legal representatives.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the expression "borrower" not only includes the persons who originally took the loan or the persons who originally stood guarantee, but also their legal representatives and heirs.

4. The present controversy is in connection with financial assistance to the extent of Rs 650 lacs taken by ROM Industries Limited from the respondent [Bank of India] for opening import letters of credit. One Smt. Parvati Devi, amongst others, stood guarantee for the said financial assistance. She also allegedly created an equitable mortgage in respect of her immovable property situated at 16/73, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. In October, 1996, the account of M/s ROM Industries Ltd was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank of India. On 19.08.2000, the said Smt. Parvati Devi passed away. In November, 2003, the Bank of India filed a recovery application [OA 91/2003] in respect of the said loan before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Although, Smt. Parvati Devi had already expired on the date on which the said application was filed, she was named as a party. Subsequently, on 04.12.2003, an amendment was sought to implead her legal representatives which include her son [Girdhari Lal Gupta] and daughter [Asha Singla] amongst others. The said Girdhari Lal Gupta also passed away on 02.05.2004 and his legal representatives which include Kamal Gupta and Rajan Gupta were substituted. The said Kamal Gupta and Rajan Gupta are the sons of Late Shri Girdhari Lal Gupta. The present writ petitions have been filed by the said Asha Singla, Kamal Gupta and Rajan Gupta who are all legal representatives, directly or indirectly, of Late Smt. Parvati Devi. On 05.10.2005, the respondent [Bank of India] also issued notices under Section 13 (2) of the said Act against, inter alia, the petitioners in their capacity as legal heirs of Smt. Parvati Devi. Since these petitions are essentially directed against the issuance of the said notice dated 05.10.2005 and the invocation of provisions of Section 13 (2) of the said Act, it would be appropriate if the relevant portions of the said notice are set out:

"NOTICE U/S 13(2) OF THE SECUTITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002

You are aware that the Bank had granted various credit facilities to the following firms / company for which Late Smt. Parvati Devi stood as guarantor. The details of the various credit facilities granted by the Bank and the amounts outstanding dues thereunder as on the date of notice are as under:

1. M/s Rom Industries Ltd

Nature of Facility

Sanctioned Limit (Rs.) 650 lacs

Outstanding Dues (Rs.) 22,54,05,668.20

Import L/C

2. You are further aware that Late Smt. Parbati Devi had executed various Letters of Guarantee guaranteeing the due repayment of the amounts mentioned therein by the Principal Debtor and all interest, costs, charges and expenses due and accruing thereon.

3. You are further aware that Late Smt. Parbati Devi had undertaken liability under the various Letters of Guarantee for repayment of the aforesaid limits granted by the Bank