JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, CJ.

Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Bank.

2. In Writ Petition No.38351 of 2014, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) has been dismissed. Commercial Court Appeal No.8 of 2018 is directed against the Judgment dated 6.02.2018 passed in C.O.S.No.50 of 2017. On account of commonality of the issues, the writ petition as well as the Commercial Court Appeal were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Relevant facts giving rise to the controversy involved in both the cases are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the owners’) are the owners of four-storied building bearing Municipal Nos.3-4-683, 3-4-684 and New Shop adjacent to it and house No.3-4-685/1, admeasuring 297 square yards along with built up area of 13300 square feet, situated in