JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - The challenge herein is to the securitisation proceedings initiated including the notice dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') wherein a sum of Rs. 86,19,540/- is being claimed and the subsequent proceedings whereby physical possession is sought to be taken by resorting to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.

2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the loan was taken in the year 2014 of a house No. 1009/31, Laxman Vihar, Phase 2, Near Shani Mandir, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana), measuring 122 square yards.

3. The respondent has placed on record a copy of the sale deed executed by the petitioners on 19.08.2017 wherein the said house has been sold.

4. In our considered opinion, the petitioners locus standi as such, to challenge the securitisation proceedings after having executed a sale deed and having averred that they are in physical possession of the property would go on to show that the writ petition has been filed by concealing the facts. The matter has been pending since 07.10.2022 but the counsel is not coming forward to argue the matter. Even otherwise there is an alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the Act.

5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is not for the Writ Court to exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the huge outstanding as the bank is only seeking to recover the same, especially keeping in view the law laid down in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & others , (2010) 8 SCC 110 . The principles laid down in the said case were also arising out of the proceedings of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and resultantly discussing the law in detail it was held that as under:-

27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.

28. Insofar as this case is concerned, we are convinced that the High Court was not at all justified in injuncting the appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.

29. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest the appeal, the costs are made easy."

6. In Union Bank of India and another v. Panchanan Subudhi , (2010) 15 SCC 552 , the High Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in installments for liquidating the dues of the appellant-Bank and proceedings were pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Bank had issued notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and even the recovery amount had been quantified by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the High Court had been approached, which had directed that the amount be paid