SARFAESI--In the eventuality of issuance of any subsequent notice to the borrower during the pendency of SA, the borrower is not required to file fresh S.A every time--Plaint can be amended accordingly.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.12496, 10471 and 10866 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the questions of law involved in all these petitions are identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.12496 of 2016.

2. In CWP No.12496 of 2016, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 1.6.2016, Annexure P.7 passed by respondent No.2 and sale notice dated 6.5.2016, Annexure P.5 passed by respondent No.1 being in violation to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “the SARFAESI Act”) and the Rules 2002 framed therein. Further prayer has been made for a direction to respondent No.2 to adjudicate IA No.817 of 2016 filed by the petitioner in SA No.389 of 2013. Direction has also been sought for restraining respondent No.1 Bank from selling hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the petitioner and in case if sold or any third party rights are created, restore the property back to the petitioner.

3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. On 21.03.2013, the petitioner availed cash credit loan from respondent No.1 to the extent of Rs.9 crores. In order to secure the same, the factory at Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh was mortgaged with the Bank. The petitioner had never hypothecated the machinery with the respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, it is only in the case of term loan that machinery can be hypothecated in favour of the Bank. The Bank relied upon hypothecation deed from where it sought support from certain hand written insertions to claim hypothecation of machinery. On 25.7.2013, the petitioner through its partner Shri Rohit Gupta received a telephonic call from Shri Lakhbir Singh, the then AGM of the Bank who asked the petitioner to visit the branch in connection with renewal of adhoc limit of Rs.1 crore. Shri Lakhbir Singh demanded an amount of Rs.25 lacs as extraneous consideration for obtaining requisite orders for renewal of the adhoc limit and further assured to grant concessional rate of interest. The petitioner replied that it was not possible for him to make such a huge payment as he was undergoing refurbishing/reconditioning and up gradation of his machinery for which he had to spend a lot of money. On this Shri Lakhbir Singh threatened that in case he did not deposit atleast 10% of the demanded amount, he will close down the unit. Since the petitioner could not pay the demanded amount, he got up from the bank and went off stating that he was unable to pay. On the same day i.e. 25.7.2013, the petitioner had to rush to Chandigarh for some emergency where he met with an accident due to which his phone was not working. On 26.7.2013 at about 6 AM, the petitioner received one phone call from one of the staff member that Shri Lakhbir Singh alongwith Shri Paramjit Singh, Manager, loans had forcibly taken physical possession of the unit without any notice. On 6.8.2013, the Bank for the first time issued letter dated 27.7.2013, at the behest of Shri Lakhbir Singh intimating that the account had become NPA w.e.f 27.7.2013 on the ground that the petitioner had taken away the machinery which was alleged to be mortgaged with the Bank. The petitioner had initially approached this court through CWP No.16982 of 2013 for a direction to the respondent Bank to restore the possession as the Bank had illegally taken possession without even issuing demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Notice was issued in the said writ petition. The Bank in the reply stated that it had not taken physical possession and in case if any lock was fixed on the premises, the petitioner was free to remove the same. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed SA No.389 of 2013 before respondent No.2 challenging action of the bank initiated under the provisions of the Act and also the demand notice und