Borrowers have a legal and moral duty to repay loan amounts to the Bank. Once an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by the law, the High Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - For the sake of brevity and convenience, the party shall be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

2. The appellants-writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 841 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners are proprietors of the firm in the name and style of M/S Shyam Radios. For the purpose of running the business, the writ petitioners had taken out certain credit facilities from Punjab National Bank, respondent No.1. The details of these credit facilities are reads as under:-

4. According to the petitioners, when the aforesaid loans/credit limits were extended to them, certain properties were mortgaged, as security with the bank. The details of the said properties are as follows:

5. Moreover, according to the petitioners, they borrowed a housing loan from the respondent-Bank. They started paying the installment of the loan. However, due to certain financial hardship, and personal family problems, the petitioners defaulted in payment of installment of loan amount. Therefore, the Bank issued certain notices to the petitioners. The petitioners requested the Bank to co-operate with them, and to permit the repayment of loan amount in easy installments. Despite the fact that petitioners have been making these requests to the Bank since 2016, the Bank has not agreed to such proposal. Instead, on 25.02.2020, the Bank issued the notice to the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'as the SARFAESI Act'). Subsequently, on 27.05.2020, the Bank has issued notices to the petitioners under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. However, by the impugned order dated 11.06.2020, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioners, have an efficacious alternative remedy for challenging said notices before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT'). Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present Special Appeal.

6. Mr. Xitij Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had given undertaking before this Court that they will negotiate with the Bank. In pursuance of such undertaking, on 20.11.2020, the Bank had info