The court emphasized the applicability of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the availability of remedies under the SARFAESI Act.

1. We have heard Shri Ajai Bhanot assisted by Shri Aarohi Bhalla and Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari for the petitioners. Shri Satish Chaturvedi appears for respondent No. 1. Shri Om Prakash Misra appears for respondent No. 2. In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

(a) issue a writ/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the deed of assignment dated 29.3.2006 executed by and between respondent No. 1 (State Bank of India) and respondent No. 2 (Kotak Mahindra Bank); and

(b) Issue a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby restraining respondent No. 2 (Kotak Mahindra Bank) to take any coercive steps for recovery of amount from the petitioners; and

(c) Issue a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to provide correct account details of the loan account and fixed deposits of the petitioners and details as to how the OTS amount of Rs.87,83,973.88 is arrived at; and

(d) Direct respondent No. 1 (State Bank of India) to decide the OTS proposal filed by the petitioners before it within a specific period of time; and them including other transactions, if any; and

(e) Direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to initiate proper inquiry against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the fraud committed by them including other transactions, if any; and

(f) Issue any other order/direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The recovery of dues of the State Bank of India, which was sought to be recovered by the Bank by filing a suit in Debts Recovery Tribunal, was challenged by the petitioners in several writ petitions, the last of which was decided by this Court on 3.9.2012 in Shalini Asha Chopra and Others Vs. Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and Others, (2013) 2 BC 678. The challenge to the assignment of the dues of the State Bank of India to Kotak Mahindra Bank was not accepted. The Court held in paragraphs 30 to 33 as follows:

30. Thus, u/s 5 of the Securitisation Act, any securitisation company or reconstruction company can acquire financial assets of any Bank by issuing a debenture bond or any other security or by entering into an agreement with such Bank for the transfer of such financial assets to such company on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between them. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 further provides that if on the date of acquisition of financial asset any suit filed by the Bank relating to the said financial asset is pending, the same shall not abate by reason of acquisition of financial asset by the securitisation company and can be continued, prosecuted and enforced by the securitisation or reconstruction company. In the present case, the deed of assignment was executed between State Bank of India and Kotak Mahindra Bank and thus also, in view of the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Securitisation Act, the suit could be continued, prosecuted and enforced by the securitisation or reconstruction company even if the assignment deed was executed during the pendency of the Transfer Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugalkishore Saraf (supra) will not come to the aid of the petitioners and the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal committed no illegality in allowing the application filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank.

32. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the order dated 10th May, 2006 by which the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioners for dismissal of the Transfer Application as the State Bank of India had executed the assignment deed in favour of the Kotak Mahindra Bank and had no interest left cannot also be accepted. Kotak Mahindra Bank was not a party in the said application and had not been heard by the Debts Recovery Tribunal when it passed the said order and, therefore, cannot be bound by the said order. Ev