JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the various notices and proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 2002 Act').

2. The demand notice dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure P-3) which has been appended with the writ petition would go on to show that the respondent-Bank put forth a demand of Rs.16,99,110/- for the housing loan bearing account No.29700600002699. Similarly another demand of Rs.25,43,762/- against the housing loan bearing account No. 29700600002736 had been made, thus, taking the outstandings to Rs.42,42,872/- The property which was mortgaged was a residential property bearing House No.228, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra measuring 388.5 square yards in the name of Neelam Gaba wife of Suresh Kumar Gaba, who are the petitioners No.1 and 2, respectively herein. The said notice was apparently followed up by a notice dated 25.03.2019 issued under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act, which has been placed on as Annexure A-1 alongwith the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners to the application bearing CM-19929-CWP-2022 for vacation of stay dated 31.08.2022. The same has also been placed on record by the respondent- Bank as Annexure R-8.

3. In the reply to the application for vacation of stay the case of the petitioners was that the respondent-Bank was proceeding without issuance of the possession notice and resorting to proceedings under Section 14 of the 2002 Act and resultantly the order of the District Magistrate dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-4) has been challenged. A perusal of the order passed by the said authority would go on to show that there was reference to notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the 2002 Act also. It was, accordingly, pleaded in the reply to the said application that the loan accounts were classified as 'Non-Performing Asset' (NPA) on 09.11.2018 and without issuing any possession notice, the orders had been obtained from the District Magistrate.

4. It was further pleaded that the daughter-in-law of the petitioners had filed a civil suit against the petitioners as well as the respondent-Bank that the said property be restored in her favour. Apparently, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of the Bank was allowed and the plaint was rejected and the appeal also before the first Appellate Court met the same fate. Resultantly, RSA No.1175 of 2022 was filed before this Court wherein directions were issued for depositing a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on 30.05.2022 and the remaining by 15.07.2022 to cover the outstandings of Rs.42,42,872/-. Resultantly, the appeal was withdrawn on 02.08.2022 (Annexure P-6). Since these facts were mentioned in the order dated 30.05.2022 passed in the regular second appeal, which has been appended as Annexure P-6, accordingly, an impression was given before the Coordinate Bench by referring to the account statement that Rs.19,85,641.30 and Rs.22,57,230.70 stood deposited and therefore proceedings under the 2002 Act could not be resorted to and the interim order came to be passed on 21.08.2022, which reads as under:-

"Notice of motion for 07.02.2023.

Since respondent No.1 had received towards payment of the loan dues Rs.22,57,230.70 on 03.08.2022 and a further sum of Rs.19,85,641.30 on the same day towards the other loan dues and practically the entire amount claimed in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 thus, stood recovered, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to take over physical possession of the secured asset without reviewing the status of the loans as per the RBI circulars.