A deemed lender under the SARFAESI Act can invoke rights without reissuing a demand notice if the previous lender had done so, even after settlement.

1. The petitioner seeks writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order, dated 20.04.2017, in S.A. No.278 of 2016 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the DRT), Visakhapatnam, and the order, dated 08.02.2019, in Appeal No.209 of 2017 on the file of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the DRAT') at Calcutta, In charge Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad, and quash the same and consequently set aside all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. The petitioner's case, succinctly, is thus:
(a) The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business in sales and service of earth moving and material handling machinery and equipment and their lubricants. For their business purpose, the petitioner availed credit facilities from respondent No.3 (R3) to an extent of Rs.500.00 lakhs. The Directors of the petitioner company also constituted a Partnership Firm and carrying separate business in the name and style of 'M/s. Vishu Tek Logistics' a Partnership Firm and the said firm also availed certain finances from R3. The petitioner and the partnership firm went into rough weathers and therefore they defaulted in repaying the loans availed from R3. The loan repayable to R3 is secured by 6 properties narrated in the Writ Petition, out of which the property shown in Item No.2 was released in favour of the petitioner by R3 and the property shown as Item No.5 was subsequently sold by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (R1 & R2) highhandedly and the same is subject matter of litigation in S.A. No.232 of 2016, pending on the file of DRT, Visakhapatnam.
(b) The further case of the petitioner is that in view of the default committed by the petitioner as well as the partnership firm, R3 initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, 'the RDDB Act') and the SARFAESI Act. R3 issued notice, dated 12.05.2009, under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,14,45,950.03 as on 11.05.2009. The petitioner along with the partnership firm approached R3 for settlement of the loan account under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, as per the norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India. R3 accepted the proposal and agreed to settle the loan account of both the petitioner and partnership firm for a sum of Rs.640.00 lakhs and communicated the same to petitioner vide letter bearing No. 1729/45/90, dated 30.09.2013. The petitioner and partnership firm, in order to avail the concessions granted under OTS scheme, together paid rupees one crore immediately. R3 had granted time till 19.12.2013 for payment of balance amount of Rs.5.40 crores.
(c) It is further submitted that since the petitioner and its partnership firm were facing financial crunch, they along with R1 & R2 approached R3. The petitioner, R2 and R3 entered into a Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to clear the balance OTS amount. As per the terms of MoU, the balance amount Rs.5.40 crores under the OTS was agreed to be paid by R2 to R3 and in turn R3 was obligated to assign the financial assets to R2 along with the security interest. In terms of the aforesaid tripartite MoU, R3 after realizing its debt in terms of OTS, executed an Assignment Deed, dated 16.12.2013, in favo