JUDGMENT :

[Sandeep Mehta, J.]

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court craving the following reliefs:

“In the premises, it is therefore, prayed that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.2 and 3 to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued for quashing and setting aside impugned E-auction proceeding held on 13.12.2022 and the sale certificate if any thereof issued in favour of the Respondent No.4 in respect of the immovable property shown at Schedule below

-AND/OR-

Why such further writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued quashing and setting aside the Revocation of Compromise settlement letter under reference No NEDFI/PFD-SAMC/2022-23/ No 645 dated 27.05.2022 of M/s. Shree Sai Prakash Alloys (P) limited (Petitioner No.2)

-AND/OR-

Why a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued commanding, directing the Respondent No 1, 2 and 3 to restore the operation of the compromise Settlement sanction letter of the term loan account of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 under reference No NEDFI/PFD-SAMC/2020-21/No. 4677 dated 31.03.2021, give extension thereof on any condition and to accept the left over and/or remaining balance amounts of the said Compromise settlement sanction letter dated 31.03.2021 along with such interest per annum as contracted in terms of the Term Loan Agreement arrived at Between the parties

-AND/OR-

In the event of repayment of Rs.4,30,000,00/-and Rs.1,20,000,00/-out of the total compromise amount being about 86% of the compromise settlement, why such direction shall not be made for handing over possession of the mortgaged property shown at Schedule below to the Petitioners.”

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by two petitioner Companies through their authorized Director-Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bhagat seeking the above said reliefs.

The petitioner Companies took term loans of Rs.7 crores and Rs.5 crores respectively from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for generating working capital. The term loans were sanctioned on 23.09.2011 (Rs.7 crores) and 15.03.2014 (Rs.5 crores).

It may be stated that for securing the loans, equitable mortgage was created by pledging the personal properties of the Directors Sandeep Kumar Bhagat and Smt. Shalini Bhagat. The Companies ran into financial crisis sometime around the year 2016 and thus, the repayments became irregular. The accounts were declared NPA. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 initiated proceedings for securing the loan amount. A One Time Settlement (OTS in short) was arrived at between the parties on 30.07.2019. However, as the petitioners failed to pay the amount under the One Time Settlement (OTS), a revised settlement was proposed vide communication dated 31.03.2021. The loan account of the petitioner No.1 was fully liquidated. Thus, for all practical purposes, the writ petition filed on behalf the petitioner No.1 is misconceived. However, the petitioner No.2 failed to repay the due amount of loan nor did it act as per the restructuring provided under the revised/extended OTS upon which, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI in short).

4. E-auction Sale Notice was published on 10.11.2022 for auctioning the mortgaged assets being the personal properties of the Directors of the petitioner No.2. The bid of respondent No.4 has been accepted whereupon the petitioners have approached this Court assailing the auction proceedings and seeking the above mentioned relief.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Parag Das representing the petitioners has filed detailed written arguments wherein the principal thrust of challenge to the impug