( 1 ) THE petitioners are before this Court praying that "para" 18 (B) - "be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to hold that, considering the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, the petitioners who are borrowers and who had never given the property being Flat No. C/201, Zamzam Apartment, First Floor, Patel Falia, Hathikhana, Fatepura, Baroda, as security to the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 and 2 have no right or authority to take any action under the provisions of the Act and further be pleased to hold that, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no right or authority to take possession of the Flat of the petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act besides, the petitioners have prayed various other reliefs, as Para " 18, the prayer clause, consists of, as many as eight sub-clauses.

( 2 ) IF the petitioners are heard, saying the submissions made in this petition and if the petition is considered for grant of the relief quoted hereinabove or any other relief, its net effect will be that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act; 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") will stand repeal from the statute book. The act was brought on the statute book for a definite purpose and the purpose was to see that the financial institutions are not made to follow a long recovery procedure of the debts, particularly, the secured debts. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 - Bank of Baroda advanced some loan to respondent No. 3, for which the property in question i. e. Flat bearing No. C/201 of zamzam Apartment was the security. The say of the petitioners is that they do not know respondent No. 3. They have purchased this Flat from one Jetunisha Kadarmiya Shaikh " respondent No. 4 herein. It is not difficult to infer that Ruxanabeg Kamalbeg Mirza " respondent No. 3 herein had sold this Flat to respondent No. 4 and the petitioners purchased that Flat from the respondent No. 4. The petitioners purchased this Flat by registered sale-deed, executed by respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioners. The sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioners by one Sikandarbhai Kadarbhai Shaikh, the Power of Attorney holder of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

( 3 ) THE strenuous submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners that they purchased the Flat by registered sale-deed and while doing so, they did get the title documents verified and certified by an advocate as loan was to be taken from Vijaya Bank, they should be held to be a bonafide purchaser of the property and no provision of the Act shall operate against the petitioners.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to various definitions contained in various Clauses of Section - 2 of the Act, like, Clause " (f) "borrower", (m) "financial institution", (o) "non-performing asset", (zd) "secured creditor" and (ze) "secured debt. " The learned advocate also referred to Section - 13, which is in Chapter " III of the Act pertaining to enforcement of security interest. Section - 14 pertaining to the assistance to be rendered by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate while the secured creditor is taking possession of secured asset. Section " 17 pertaining to right to appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that none of these definitions and the provisions have any application to the facts of the case of the petitioners, for the simple reason that, the Bank of Baroda " respondent No. 1 herein, never advanced any loan to the petitioners and therefore, there is no question of the petitioners being "borrowers"; there is no question of the property being secured asset ; there is no question of Bank of Baroda being secured creditor ; a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document