1. All these Writ Petitions have been filed to call for the records of the respondent relating to impugned E-Auction Sale Notice, dated 29.08.2018 and quash the same.

2. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions, is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners are the guarantors to the loan facility provided by the respondent-Bank to M/s. G.B. Engineering Enterprises Private Limited, Trichy. They are also the Directors of the said Company. The said Company had availed various financial facilities with the respondent-Bank for the past 37 years and the Company was given financial facility limit upto Rs. 36.28 Crores, out of which, the said Company availed only Rs. 36 Crores as loan. As against the said loan, the valuable properties/assets of the said Company were given as "primary security" by creating equitable mortgage with the respondent, totally valued at Rs. 87.5 Crores. The said Company remained insolvent and the dues were mounting. Hence, the respondent-Bank initiated measures against the said Company under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act). Accordingly, a demand notice was issued on 07.07.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, calling upon the said Company and its Directors and Guarantors (including the Writ Petitioners herein), demanding repayment of Rs. 30,50,63,587.43 as on 07.07.2017, within 60 days from the date of the notice, otherwise, the Bank will exercise their rights under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, on 05.09.2017, the said Company (borrower) submitted a detailed representation to the respondent-Bank as envisaged under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is the stand of the petitioners that the respondent may consider such representation before coming to any conclusion as mandated under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. But, contrary to the said mandatory provision, the respondent-Bank did not care to send any communication to the said Company as to whether the representation dated 05.09.2017 was considered by them or rejected.

4. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank proceeded under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and issued first E-Auction Sale Notice, dated 28.11.2017, against which, the Company filed appeal (SARFAESI Appeal) under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, the DRT), Madurai. The DRT, by its order dated 04.01.2018 in I.A. No. 2606 of 2017 in S.A. No. 519 of 2017, refused to grant interim stay of the said E-Auction Notification. Hence, the borrower-Company preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, the DRAT), Chennai. The DRAT granted interim stay in I.A. No. 139 of 2018 on condition to make pre-deposit of Rs. 3,50,000/- within four weeks before the DRAT and if the Company fails to make the pre-deposit within the said period, it was also made clear that the appeal itself shall stand dismissed automatically without any reference to the Court and the I.A. filed before the DRAT was disposed of accordingly.

5. While so, the borrower-Company filed Company Petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, the IBC) before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short, the NCLT), Chennai, for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in C.P. No. 64(IB)/CB/2018. Thereafter, Interim Resolution Professional was appointed by order dated 25.01.2018, who took custody and control of all assets/liabilities of the said Company, including the business records and other actions provided under Section 25 of the IBC. The Moratorium Period was declared as per Section 13 of the IBC. As per Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC, the secured creditor is prohibited from proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover the amount against the Corporate Debtor, namely the borrower-Company. After the moratorium