ORAL ORDER

1. Heard, learned Advocate Mr. Mohit Gupta for the petitioners.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs;

“24. …

(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to pass a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 passed in SA No. 128 of 2021 by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II at Ahmedabad in the interest of justice.

(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to pass a writ of certiorari, order or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Ld.

Collector which is annexed at ANNEXURE-L (COLLY) as being without jurisdiction, illegal and in breach of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, in the interest of justice.

(c) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to stay the action of the Respondent bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 qua the Petitioners including stay of the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Ld. District Collector, Rajkot at Annexure – L (Colly.) and intimation / notice dated 17.08.2021 issued by the Ld. Mamlatdar, Rajkot at Annexure-B and restrain the Respondent bank from dispossessing the petitioners from their premises pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition;

(d) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to stay the operation and implementation of the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Ld. Collector which is annexed at ANNEXURE – L (Colly) and all subsequent steps pending admission and final disposal of the petition.

(e) ...”

3. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1-Company availed financial assistance of Rs.3,00,00,000/- as cash credit limit for working capital from the Respondent-

Bank, whereas, the original Petitioner No. 4- Kamlaben Maganbhai Sakaria was one of the guarantors for the financial assistance rendered by the Respondent-Bank to Petitioner No.1.

3.1 It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not produced on record the sanction letter granting financial assistance to petitioner No.1- Company nor the petitioners have produced any bank statement, which is bound have been provided by the Respondent-Bank for cash credit account and the petitioner has also not stated that statement was not provided by the respondent-Bank to the petitioners wherein the amount lent by the Respondent-Bank as cash credit must have been reflected from day-to-day transactions carried out by the petitioner No.1-Company.

3.2 It appears that the cash credit limit sanctioned Petitioner No.1-Company could not maintain and crossed the sanctioned limit of cash credit by not making payment for more than 90 days and therefore, as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the account of Petitioner No.1-Company was classified as ‘Non-peforming Asset’ (in brief, ‘NPA’), on 3 0 t h April, 201 8.

3.3 The Respondent-Bank issued notice on 1st June, 2018 to Petitioner No.1-Company under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (hereinafter, ‘SARFAESI Act’)

specifying as under;

3.4 In the notice issued by the Respondent-Bank, it was also pointed out that the cash credit facility granted by the Respondent-Bank is secured by way of creating charge on various assets.

3.5 It appears that similar notices were also issued to the other Petitioners with regard to the properties, which are mortgaged by the petitioners under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

3.6 The petitioners therefore raised objections under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act on 30th July, 2018, against the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was replied by the Respondent-Bank on 1st August, 2018.

3.7