JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Natasha Sutaria for the petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Nidhi Prajapati for respondent no.1, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for respondent nos. 2 to 10 and learned advocate Mr. Taruna Makwana for respondent no.11.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Nidhi Prajapati waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1, learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 10 and learned advocate Mr. Taruna Makwana waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.11.

3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer-II, DRT-I, Ahmedabad in Recovery Proceedings No. 694/2018 in Original Application No.184/2017 as well as pre-intimation notice dated 3.12.2019 for taking physical possession of the assets/properties of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire process of recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent banks in the aforesaid Recovery Proceedings No. 694/2018 in Original Application No.184/2017.

4. Facts of the case are summarised as under:

4.1) The petitioners are the Directors of respondent no.1 M/s. Varia Engineering Works Private Limited. Respondent no.1 company availed financial assistance from respondent no.4 to respondent no.10 consortium of banks. On failure of respondent no.1 company to pay the outstanding dues of the consortium of banks, seven banks filed Original Application No.184/2017 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I at Ahmedabad (for short “DRT”) under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (For short “RDB Act”) against the petitioners as well as respondent no.1 and one Shri Prafulchandra Punjalal Varia and Krish Tech Con Private Limited (herein after referred to as ‘defendants’).

4.2) The petitioners along with other defendants filed counter claim against the banks for recovery of Rs.934.12 crores with interest from the date of filing of the counter claim upto realisation and the same was registered separately as No. 01 of 2017 the DRT.

4.3) The DRT by judgment and award dated 13.12.2018 allowed Original Application No.184/2017 after considering the loan and security documents executed by respondent no.1 company, the petitioners and other guarantors in favour of the consortium of banks. The DRT passed the order to issue the Recovery Certificate for Rs.5,07,36,75,508.93 and the counter claim filed by the defendants was dismissed with cost in favour of the banks. The DRT passed the judgment and award ex-parte against the petitioners and other defendants as no written statement was filed by the defendants and right of the defendants stood closed vide order dated 21.08.2017. The DRT ordered to issue the Recovery Certificate with memo of cost under section 19(22) of the RDB Act together with details of the properties and the defendants were restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with the properties/assets which are mortgaged with respondent nos. 4 to 10 consortium of banks without first paying the claim of the banks.

4.4) Bank of Baroda also filed an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as ”IBC”) read with Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (herein after referred to as “the Rules”) with a prayer to trigger Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of respondent no.1 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (For short “NCLT”)being CP No.(IB) 149/7/NCLT/AHM/2017.

4.5) NCLT passed an ex-parte order on 21.12.2017 as none appeared for respondent no.1 company. NCLT admitted the application under section 7(5) of the IBC and appointed interim Resolution Professional (For short “RP”) under section 13