JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. Short point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is:

whether an application under Section 19 for payment of compensation can be filed independently or separately without seeking such prayer in an application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002?

OR

whether for payment of compensation specified in Section 19 the prayer has to be sought for in the application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or separate application is to be filed?

OR

whether Section 19 is a standalone provision, giving right to an applicant to file an application for compensation after adjudication of the application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002?

2. Since answers to the above points are interconnected, all the questions are taken up together and answered hereinbelow.

3. The facts in brief which has given rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

3.1 M/s. Mithilanchal Industries Private Limited and M/s. Telstar Industries Private Limited had availed certain financial assistance from respondent No.1 – secured creditor and writ applicants had stood as guarantors/mortgagers against which the security interest was created by them on the moveable and immovable properties belonging to them and in the name of the said company.

3.2 On account of the loan accounts of the companies were classified as a Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 27.12.2014, a notice under Section 13(2) of the of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’) came to be issued on 19.3.2015 for taking possession of the secured assets viz. immovable property. The said action was challenged by the company including writ applicants before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRT’) by filing an application in Securitisation Application No.47 of 2015 and Securitisation Application No.48 of 2015 respectively, by invoking Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. On 22.7.2015, the symbolic possession of the property was taken and on 13.1.2017, physical possession of the property was taken. The DRT allowed the applications on 22.6.2017 being Securitisation Application No.47 of 2015 and Securitisation Application No.48 of 2015 and directed the secured creditor – bank to restore physical possession of the property to the petitioners. The bank filed an appeal being Appeal No.130 of 2017 and Appeal No.131 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRAT’) under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act along with an application for stay of the order under challenge.

3.3 In the meanwhile, the writ applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No.44 of 2017 and Miscellaneous Application No.45 of 2017 before the DRT for execution of the order dated 22.6.2017 whereunder the DRT directed the authorised officer to remain present for not complying with the order of the Tribunal. Challenging the said action, Special Civil Application No.14741 of 2017 and Special Civil Application No.14910 of 2017 were filed by the secured creditor challenging the order passed in Misc. Application No.44 of 2017 and Misc. Application No.45 of 2017, which stayed the proceedings before the DRT. The said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of on 24.6.2019 by directing the DRAT to decide Appeal No.130 of 2017 on or before 31.10.2019. The DRAT, by order dated 23.8.2019, dismissed the appeals filed by the bank. Being aggrieved by the same, the secured creditor filed Special Civil Application No.19920 of 2019 and Special Civil Application No.19921 of 2019 before this Court which came to be dismissed on 14.11.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, Letters Patent Appe