Compliance with statutory requirements under the SARFAESI Act and petitioners' awareness of proceedings and challenges in various forums.

1. The petitioner are respondent in C.M.P.No.597 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The petitioners herein filed this petition to quash the above proceedings.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 20.08.2010 in C.M.P.No.597 of 2009. The lower Court is has no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed by the respondent Bank under Section 14 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred as SARFAESI Act). Further contention is that mandatory notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act was not served individually to the petitioner. Further, the notice was sent to the Power of Attorney Mr.C.N.Padmanabhan, father of the petitioner, who is R4 in C.M.P.No.597 of 2009. The notice issued to the father, Power of Attorney has not been mentioned in what capacity it was been sent to him. Further it is contended that the Power of Attorney is a forged one as per Finger Print Bureau Report dated 10.10.2011. The respondent bank suppressing the sale dated 08.06.2009, which is under challenge in S.A.No.102 of 2009 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Coimbatore has filed the above petition. Further, when the notice was issued to them under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the respondent bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Coimbatore, and hence they are not estopped to contend that Section 13(2) notice was not served to them. Further 13(4) Possession Notice issued by the respondent bank has been challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Coimbatore in OA (S) 42 of 2005. Hence, prayed to quash or setaside the impugned order dated 20.08.2010 in C.M.P.No.597 of 2009.

3. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners filed a typed set of papers and additional typed set of papers with documents and relied upon the following citations:

(1) Indian Overseas Bank Vs. M/s. Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. & Others reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 4896;

(2) Authorised Officer, Canara Bank Vs. Sulay Traders through Bipin Kantilal Vakta & Others reported in 2010 of DRTC 818 (Gujarat);

(3) V.Noble Kumar Vs. The Authorised Officer Standard Chartered Bank Auto and Mortgage Collections, Chennai & Others reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 4627;

(4) Sheeba Philominal Merlin & Another The Repatriates Co-op Finance & Development Bank Ltd., Chennai & Others reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 4715; and

(5) M/s. Signal Apparels Pvt. Ltd., & Another Vs. Canara Bank P.N. Road Branch, Tirupur & Another reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 4316.

4. The respondent bank filed their counter, typed set of papers and documents and contended that M/S. Andavar Electrical Distributor is a partnership firm and D.K.Bakiyavel and Mrs.P.Poongodi and C.N.Padmanabhan, who are third and fifth respondents herein are its partners. The petitioners father was one of its partner and have executed necessary documents in favour of the respondent bank as security and availed credit facility for a sum of Rs.44,00,000/- (Rupees forty four lakhs only). He was registered as power of attorney in the month of January 2002,as document No.71/2002. The Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in favour of their father is to give them personal continuing guarantee for the aforesaid credit facility availed by them and also mortgage the property and for due repayment of the aforesaid credit facility. The registered Power of Attorney was handedover by the petitioners father on 06.02.2002 with title deeds of the property to the bank. Since the account of the respondents 2 to 4 became NPA and hence on 27.10.2003 notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued and thereafter on 29.07.2005 Possession notice was issued. The petitioner on receipt of the Possession notice filed O.A.(S) No.42/2005 on the file of the DRT, Coimbatore against the respondent and their Power Agent, who is the fifth respondent.