JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. We would like to begin by the saying that the biggest problem that confronts the judiciary today is, pendency of cases. The present matter before us, certainly adds to the problem and is a classic example of how such cases contribute to the judicial system getting over-burdened. What could have been done 3 years ago by issuance of a fresh notice by merely adding a few words to satisfy the requirement laid down by law, has been delayed unnecessarily and contested in a manner that has left us be wildered. This mindset of Governmental agencies/undertakings such as the appellant bank, a nationalised Bank before us, to engage in such frivolous, vexatious and impractical litigation demonstrates the gross indifference of the administration towards litigative diligence.

2. The present litigation initiated by the appellant Bank, right from the inception has resulted only in loss of the time of the various judicial forums that have been approached by the appellant Bank and is also a drain on the public exchequer. What perplexes us most, is that in such financial matters, the objective is quick recovery and lowering the possibility of losses. However, by engaging in the present litigation, the attitude adopted by the appellant Bank and its officers has borne results that are against the interests of the Bank and a matter that could have been laid to rest by rational thinking has been unnecessarily dragged for 3 years. When such litigation reaches our doorsteps, we feel exasperated by the inaction or rather the wrongful action and by the policy of blindly engaging in litigation before various judicial forums as entities such as the appellant Bank before us are expected to exercise finer sense and sensibility in their litigation policy, as compared to an individual litigant.

3. The Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Secured Creditor’) has preferred these two Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in two connected Special Civil Application Nos. 19918 of 2019 and 19920 of 2019 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions by a common judgment.

4. As both the appeals have more or less similar facts and identical legal issues, except that the Borrowers in the two cases are different, the same are taken up together just as before the learned Single Judge. The respondent companies are the Borrowers of the appellant Bank-the Secured Creditor and had taken credit facilities as also term loans against securities which included hypothecation of plant and machinery, stock and book debts, mortgage of factory land and building and other immovable properties belonging to the promoters. These loans were taken some time in the year 2010 to 2013. We are not going into the facts as they are more or less admitted insofar as the borrowings are concerned and furnishing of the securities. There is also reference to certain correspondence regarding an issue relating to rate of interest. This is also apparent from the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

5. At some stage, the Borrowers defaulted in repayment of the loans, as a result of which the Secured Creditor classified the accounts of the Borrowers as Non Performing Accounts. Subsequently, the Secured Creditor issued demand notice dated 29.12.2014 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”). The Borrowers submitted objections/representation under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act against the notice under Section 13(2). However, the objection/representation of the Borrowers were not found to be satisfactory. Accordingly the Secured Creditor called upon the Borrowers to deliver possess