ORDER :

K.M. Thaker, J.

The petitioners have taken out present petition against the respondent State Bank of India seeking below mentioned relief and directions:-

"7.(A) to set aside the auction held on 24.2.2012 and direct the respondent Bank to consider and accept the OTS proposal dated 12.12.2011 of Micro Forge India Private Limited as further improved by email/fax communication dated 3.3.2012 and to consider and accept the OTS proposal dated 12.12.2011 of New Tech Forge and Foundry Limited.

(B) to restrain, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the respondent bank from confirming the sale in respect of the factory, land and building and plant and machinery of the petitioner No.1 Company pursuant to the auction dated 24.2.2012.

(C)........."

1.1 The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 are companies which availed loan facilities from the respondent bank. So far as petitioner No.7 is concerned, the loan were granted by consortium of financial institutions of which respondent bank was also a member.

1.2 The petitioners failed to discharge their respective obligations of repayment of loan amount. Therefore the respondent bank initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act") and after following procedure under Section 13(2), 13(4) and Section 14 of SARFAESI Act the respondent bank took over possession of the secured assets.

1.3 Thereafter, the respondent bank put up the properties of respondent No1 and 7 i.e. the secured assets for auction sale. The first two attempts failed. Therefore the respondent bank initiated third attempt which succeeded so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned but it failed so far as the properties of petitioner No.7 is concerned.

1.4 The auction sale of the secured assets of petitioner No.1 was conducted on 24.2.2012 and the respondent bank accepted the highest bid made during the auction process conducted on 24.2.2012.

1.5 It is after the said stage that the petitioners preferred present petition and prayed for above mentioned relief/s.

1.6 During the pendency of the petition the respondent bank has taken out an application under Article 226 (3) of the constitution of India which came to be registered as Civil Application No.3798 of 2012.

2. The captioned petition appears to have been filed on or around 6.3.2012 and was circulated for admission hearing, for first time on 7.3.2012. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court passed below mentioned order on 7.3.2012:-

"Leave to amend.

NOTICE returnable on 29.3.2012. Meanwhile, the respondent Bank is directed not to create any further equities.

Direct service is permitted today."

3. So far as the factual backdrop leading to present petition is concerned, the facts which emerged from the record and are relevant for present purpose are as mentioned below.

3.1 The petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 are the borrowers of the respondent bank. For the said purpose, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 7 mortgaged certain properties with the respondent bank. They are borrowers in default.

3.2 In view of default by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 7 the respondent bank recalled the loan facility and initiated proceedings for auction sale of the mortgaged property.

3.3 The properties mortgaged by petitioner No.1, after two previous unsuccessful attempts, have been auction sold (during third attempt) by the respondent bank and the successful bidder i.e. auction purchaser has deposited 25% of the sale consideration determined during auction process.

3.4 Before the said auction purchaser could make payment of balance amount of sale consideration and before the respondent bank could issue sale certificate, the petitioners preferred present petition wherein, the Court, by way of ex-parte interim order dated 7.3.2012 directed that the respondent bank shall not create any further equities.

3.5 It is necessary to mention at this stage that the p