ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a sale notice dated 05.01.2024 seeking to sell the subject property on 24.01.2024 and have sought a consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Bank for consider a proposal for a One Time Settlement in terms of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Jayakumar S.

Patil, appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri.K.V.Lokesh representing the respondent - Bank.

3. The petitioners are the borrowers from the respondent - Bank. The loan of Rs.3,80,00,000/- was borrowed from the respondent - Bank by the petitioners on 28.10.2014 against execution of an equitable mortgage of the subject property. The agreement to that effect was filed on the same day i.e., on 28.10.2024. The petitioners failed to make any payment. On 27.11.2015, the account of the petitioner declared to be a non-performing asset and a communication to that effect was made to the petitioners declaring the account to be a non-performing asset. When no amount came forward from the hands of the petitioners, a publication was made under Section 13(2) the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act' for short) directing payment of Rs.4,38,86,776/-. Even then, no payment comes about. The impugned possession notice was issued on

29.03.2017.

4. Then begins the legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the steps taken by the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act. The first what was challenged was the Bank initiates proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and secures an order at the hands of the learned Magistrate on 25.04.2017 in Crl.Misc.No.2797/2017 and another order on 26.05.2017 against possession of the property. It transpires that the Bank took partial possession of the property and the petitioners were dispossessed from the ground, first and second floors of the property.

5. After the said event, it transpires that the petitioners preferred W.P.No.23932-935/2017. This Court on

07.06.2017, had passed the following order:

"The respondent has entered caveat.

Pending consideration of the petitions, in order to enable the respondent to receive the outstanding and also to aid the petitioners to make attempts to settle the matter with the respondent, keeping in view that though the claim as made is in respect of the entire loan, the petitioners in any event will have to make efforts to pay the EMI dues and seek for regularization of the amount. In that view, the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) initially with the respondent within three weeks from this date.

On such deposit being made, the possession shall be handed back to the petitioners. Within a further period of eight weeks thereafter the entire balance of EMI dues shall be paid to the respondent and the loan shall be regularized.

It is made clear that if the deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- is made the respondent should not be obliged to hand back possession to the petitioners If the first condition is complied and the possession is taken by the petitioners but if the condition of repayment of the EMI dues in eight weeks is not complied, the respondents at the end of eight weeks would be entitled to repossess the premises without resorting to any other procedure under Section 14 of the Act or by seeking clarifications herein."

The order was conditional that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, within three weeks from 07.06.2017 and it was directed that the account was also to be regularize within eight weeks, after which the respondents who are directed to restore possession in favour of the petitioners. Rs.25,00,000/- payment was made and the petitioner was restored possession in terms of the order of the Court dated 07.06.2017. The regularization of the account as was directed by the Court did not ha