The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of expeditious and effective remedies under Sections 17 & 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the caution required in granting ex-parte interim orders in financial matters.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of SARFAESI Case No. 14/2018 including the order dated 12.06.2018 (Anneuxre-2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 on the application filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) to take physical possession of the residential house of the petitioners without determination of the issues on merit.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioners had taken loan for construction of residential house from the respondent-Bank and the loan account subsequently became Non-Performing Assets (in short NPA). A notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI, Act, 2002 was issued to the petitioners on 19.03.2013 and thereafter the symbolic possession of the mortgaged property was taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Under the One Time Settlement (in short OTS) scheme, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.4,37,681/- till 31.03.2018 which according to the petitioners was not availed due to physical inability. In the meantime, the respondent-Bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the respondent No.3 which was registered as SARFAESI Case No. 14/2018 wherein a notice was issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Bank and on assurance of the Bank that the loan account would be settled amicably under the OTS scheme, they did not turn up in the said SARFAESI case. Thus, the respondent No.3 vide order dated 12.06.2018, has directed the Bank to deposit the required amount through Nazir receipt for deputing the police force to take possession of the mortgaged property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Bank was ready to settle the loan account under the OTS scheme and the petitioners were also ready to deposit all the legitimate dues of the Bank, yet the steps are being taken for their dispossession from the property in question which shows arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-Bank. The respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order has also not satisfied himself as required under the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the present wit petition is not maintainable either on facts or on law, as the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court without taking recourse of alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy provided under the provisions of Sections 17 & 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the present writ petition, it appears that the petitioners have put challenge to the proceeding initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the respondent No.3. The said step has been taken by the respondent No.3 in consequence of the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by the respondent-Bank which is appealable in nature.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held as under:

“42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus e