It is mandatory for the Secured Creditor/Bank to effect personal service of the sale notice, apart from publication as provided under Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

ORDER

Jaswant Singh, J. - Petitioner No. 1 is a defaulter borrower Company and is aggrieved of the order dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure P-9) passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short "DRAT") under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2002"), vide which its Appeal No. 33 of 2012 has been dismissed, while the Appeal No. 437 of 2011 filed by respondent No.6 (Auction Purchaser) and Appeal No.438 of 2011 filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 (secured creditors and its officers) has been allowed and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short "DRT") dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed in SA No. 31 of 2008, filed by the petitioners (defaulting borrowers) has been set aside. As a result of thereof, sale conducted by respondent No. 1 (secured creditor) in favour of the auction purchaser (respondent No. 5) has been upheld, which was set aside by the DRT vide its order dated 15.12.2011 (P-7).

2. Briefly, the undisputed facts of the instant case are that petitioner No. 1 is a borrower Company, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are its Directors. It had availed credit facilities from respondent No.1-UCO Bank (Secured Creditor). In order to secure the same, two properties were mortgaged i.e. Industrial Property No. B-4+5, Industrial Focal Point, Dera Bassi, owned by petitioner No. 1-Borrower Company (property in question) and SCO No.44, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh owned by guarantors, namely, Smt. Achal & Yogesh Bansal. Since, petitioner No.1 was unable to repay the credit facilities, its loan account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.03.2006 by UCO Bank (R-l). On 19.08.2006, respondent No.1 issued Notice Under Section 13 (2) of the Act, 2002, claiming an amount of Rs 3,52,62,965.60 as on 31.03.2006. On 29.11.2006, notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002, was issued by respondent No.1, vide which symbolic possession was taken of both the mortgaged properties.

3. On 26.12.2006, a representation was submitted by petitioner No.1-Company to respondent No.1 (Annexure R-l/7), wherein petitioner No.1-Company sought 3 months' time period to resolve the financial stress and regularize the account and further stated that in case if the petitioner No.1 fails to do so, the Bank may initiate further steps to recover the debt of the Company.

4. Aggrieved of notice dated 29.11.2006 issued by respondent No.1-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, Securitisation Application (SA) No.3 of 2007 came to be filed under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 by the guarantors (other than petitioners), i.e. Smt. Achal Bansal and Yogesh Bansal, before DRT, Chandigarh, challenging steps taken by respondent No.1 qua the second mortgaged property i.e. SCO No.44, Sector-30-C, Chandigarh. Petitioner No.1, which is the owner/mortgagor of the Industrial property at Derabassi (subject property), chose not to file any S.A. at that stage.

5. On 23.05.2007, the petitioners herein, who were respondents in S.A. No.3 of 2007 filed by guarantors, instead of filing their own SA, devised a novel method and intended to challenge action of respondent No.1/Secured Creditor under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002 qua the industrial property, Derabassi, by filing an application bearing LA. No.140 of 2007 in S.A. No. 3 of 2007, filed by the guarantors namely Smt. Achal Bansal and Yogesh Bansal. The said application was dismissed on 23.05.2007 by D.R.T.-I, Chandigarh (Annexure R-l/2), being not maintainable. Aggrieved against the above, the petitioners filed appeal before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Delhi under Section 18 of the Act, 2002, which also was dismissed on 19.09.2007. Still aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP No. 15851 of 2007 titled as M/s Morion Chemicals Limited Versus United Commercial Bank Limited, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.10.2007.

6. On 24.08.2007, respondent