IMPORTANT POINT
The borrower's right of redemption is extinguished upon the publication of the auction notice, allowing the auction purchaser to claim possession.

ORDER :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr.Vijay Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Lalit Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for direction to implement the order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.197 of 2012 under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the “Act”) whereby, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the respondent to take physical possession of the property in question.

3. Briefly stated, the respondent - bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs.3 lacs to one M/s.Norton Industries - the borrower in the year 1997 and to secure the said facility, M/s.Norton Industries executed security documents in favour of the respondent, creating security interest in favour of the respondent.

3.1. The borrower failed to make the payment of the loan amount and in view thereof, the account of the borrower was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30.03.2003. The respondent – bank issued notice dated 20.11.2003 under Section 13(2) of the Act. The symbolic possession of the property in question was taken on 05.08.2010 under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.

3.2. The borrower i.e. M/s.Norton Industries having not repaid the financial assistance availed, even after taking the symbolic possession of the property in question, the respondent – bank issued sale notice on 12.09.2011 and thereby, put the property for auction on 20.10.2011 and the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and the bid for an amount to the tune of Rs.26,51,000/- was accepted by the respondent – bank as highest bid. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein has paid the aforesaid entire amount within the stipulated time. Not only that, the respondent – bank, as a part of the sale process also, executed the registered conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner on 25.01.2012. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 30.03.2013 passed the order under Section 14 of the Act for taking physical possession of the property.

3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the borrower i.e. M/s.Norton Industries, being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.03.2013, filed Securitisation Application No.39 of 2013 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad under Section 17 of the Act without joining the petitioner as party respondent in the said proceedings.

3.4. The learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, upon hearing all the parties, dismissed the said Securitisation Application No.39 of 2013 by order dated 17.09.2013, duly produced at Annexure-C.

3.5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in Securitisation Application No.39 of 2013, the borrower preferred appeal being Appeal No.264 of 2013 before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai without joining the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an application for joining in the said appeal, which came to be allowed by order dated 07.10.2015. The learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, upon hearing the concerned parties, by order dated 16.01.2024, dismissed the appeal. Since the said appeal came to be dismissed, the petitioner approached the respondent – bank by letter dated 01.02.2024 with a request to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the property in question. The said letter was duly received by the respondent – bank by hand delivery on 02.02.2024.

3.6. Though, upon lapse of 30 days, in absence of any reply given by the respondent – bank, the petitioner gave another letter for reminder on 04.03.2024. In absence of any reply nor any action taken by the respondent – bank, the petitioner has approached this Court, invoking Article 22