JUDGMENT :

1. Leave to amend the prayer clause.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.M.Gohil for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Harshada K. Darji for respondent Nos. 2-5, 6.1-6.3, 7 and 8.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Harshada Darji for respondents waives service of notice of rule. Though served, no one appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 9 to 11 and therefore, rule is not required to be served upon them.

4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow the present application;

B. This Hon’ble Court be Pleased to Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, Order and/or Direction quashing an setting aside the Order dated 21/08/2019 below Exhibit 08 passed by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad - the Respondent no. 1 in Securitisation Application No. 353 of 2018 qua the direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- only;

C. That pending hearing and Final disposal of the to present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to Stay the Implementation of the Order dated 21/08/2019 below Exhibit 08 passed by the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal - II Ahmedabad - the Respondent no. 1 in Securitisation Application No. 353 of 2018 qua the direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- only;

D. That Bx Parte Ad-Interim Reliefs in terms of Para C above may kindly be granted and confirmed after notice to the Respondents;

E. Be pleased to pass any such further other reliefs that in the facts and circumstances, may be deemed fit in the interests of justice.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner sanctioned loan of Rs. 63.10 lacs in the year 1993 to respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 defaulted in making payment and therefore, the petitioner initiated proceedings under sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [‘SARFESAI Act’ for short]. The respondents-thereafter preferred Securitization Application No. 353 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short).

6. According to the petitioner the initiation of proceedings under the SARFESAI Act, was riddled with bone fide technical errors for service of notice upon the dead person which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner therefore sought permission before the Tribunal to withdraw the notice issued under section 13(2) of the SARFESAI Act.

8. The Tribunal passed the following order on 12.09.2019:

“Ms. Harshada’ Darji, Ld. Counsel for Applicant.

Shri V.N. Sevak Ld. counsel for Respondent bank.

Counsel for the Respondent Financial Institution submitted that Respondent Financial Institution intends to withdraw its Securitisation process owing to some technical reasons. Whereas counsel for the Applicant strongly opposed the contentions raised on behalf of Respondent Financial Institution and submitted that the Respondent Financial Institution has no right to proceed against Applicants -in this loan account as action of Respondent Financial Institution has become barred by limitation. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties as Respondent Financial Institution intends to withdraw its Securitisation process in its own discretion, practically this Securitisation - Application has become infructuous. If law permits Respondent Financial Institution may proceed in accordance with law subject to all legal and factual rights of Applicants to Challenge and question validity of said process including limitation. Respondent Financial Institution is directed not to debit any expenses incurred on withdrawn process in the account of borrower.

Further apart from above Respondent Financial Institution is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-that is half of the court fee paid by the Applicants to them to compensate the Applicants regarding expenses incurred for filing this Securitisation Application before proceeding further. Thi