JUDGMENT

Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, J.

The present judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 5349 and 5378 of 2021 as common questions of facts and law are involved in both the writ petitions.

Facts of CWP No. 5349 of 2021

2. The present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana whereby the application filed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act') was dismissed. Directions are further sought to take a decision on another application dated 01.09.2020 (Annexure P-10), which is stated to be pending.

3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 (Annexure P- 7) would go on to show that an application dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure R-3) under Section 14 of the Act had been filed wherein the bank had prayed to take the property in its possession which had been mortgaged under the Act. The application had been objected to by the private respondents on the ground that the objections had been dismissed without any valid reason under Section 13 (3A) of the Act. There were two notices dated 29.05.2019 (Annexure P-4) and 28.08.2019 (Annexure R-2) under Section 13 (4) of the Act and, therefore, the bank had committed mistake and resultantly it was held that once the notice had been withdrawn and a fresh notice had been issued, the bank was as such estopped from doing so. There were deficiencies on the part of the officer of the bank in the affidavit that the procedure under the Act had not been followed. Resultantly, it was ordered that the rectification be done and a fresh application be filed. The deficiencies as such in the affidavit were noted to the extent that it was in the name of the loanee instead of the authorized officer and no certificate was included in respect of the compliance of Section 26-D of registration with the Central Registry.

4. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that initially notice dated 13.03.2019 was issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act (Annexure P-1) to respondent No.2, the loanee including respondent No.3-Balwinder Kumar Sharma that the loan account of M/s. Jagdambay Exports had been classified as non performing asset on 01.01.2019 and there were out-standings of Rs.10,48,34,587/- w.e.f. 28.02.2019. Similar notice of even date was also issued to the guarantor-respondent No.4 namely Pawan Kumar Sharma and Suraj Parkash Sharma-respondent No.5 apart from the fact that Smt. Subhash Rani was also issued the said notice. Resultantly, objections had been filed under Section 13 (3A) of the Act on 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) which were rejected on 21.05.2019 (Annexure P-3) by the authorized officer. Apparently, thereafter possession notices (Annexure P-4 Colly) were issued on 29.05.2019 wherein, firstly there is a description of four properties in one notice and one property each in the other two notices which belong to the guarantors.

5. Apparently, the bank had also issued another set of Section 13 (4) notices dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure R-2). The bank had also filed an application dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) under Section 14 of the Act, which was rejected vide order dated 27.08.2019 on the ground that detailed reasons had not been given in the objections raised by the borrower placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others , (2004) 4 SCC 311 . The affidavit stated to be given by the authorized officer of the bank was also held