IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies and the limited circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. By way of present petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :

“A) Be pleased to quash and set aside impugned Notice dated 19.12.2023 and 23.11.2023, passed by the respondent No.1 bank and;

B) Be pleased to quash and set aside all the measures initiated by the respondent no.1 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in connection with the mortgaged property;

C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition be pleased to direct the respondents to maintain status quo of the residential property which is in physical possession of the petitioners;

D) Ex-parte Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 7 (C);

E) Costs of this petition are awarded;

F) Any other relief, order or direction which may be just, fit, proper and equitable in the fact and circumstances of the Petition.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mehul Surati, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.Ankur Oza, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr.Virendra Gohil, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2.1 The original borrower, co-borrower and guarantor, who have also received notice of the order passed by the competent authority, have chosen not to remain present before the Court and thus, the order is passed in the absence of the concerned respondents.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Surati has submitted that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the property by way of sale-deed. He has not received any notice from the competent authority while passing the impugned order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.5393 of 2010 in case of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority & Ors. and submitted that his case falls under the exception carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek relief before this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. He has also referred and relied upon two other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others; and in case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. Etc. Etc., and submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get relief as prayed for in the present petitions while exercising jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned advocate Mr.Surati has further submitted that since the petitioners are the third party, they have not borrowed money from the respondents and therefore, the order passed by the respondent authorities is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary and therefore, the petitioners have filed the present petitions with the aforesaid prayers challenging the impugned notice based upon the order passed by the respondent authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Oza, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, has submitted that no affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent No.1, however, he has orally raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present petitions.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Gohil, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6, has supported the case of the present petitioners and referred to the averments made in affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.6.

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. So far as the averments raised by the learned advocate Mr.Surati that the petitioners have not received any notice qua the order passed by the respondent authority and has not issued any notice, infact this averment is already considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in [2011] 2 SCC 782, wh