IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.21059 of 2018 (O&M)

M/S SHRI SANTOSH SAW MILL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR-VED

PRAKASH REKHAN AND ANOTHER

..…...Petitioners

V/s.

ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS

.........Respondents

CWP No.26146 of 2018 (O&M)

M/S SHRI SANTOSH SAW MILL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR-VED

PRAKASH REKHAN AND ANOTHER

..…...Petitioners

V/s.

ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS

.........Respondents

Reserved on 20.09.2022.

Date of Decision: 12.10.2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARMINDER SINGH MADAAN

Present:

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Sumit Batra, Advocate,

for the respondent-Allahabad Bank.

Mr.Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Mr. Saurav Kanojia, Advocate

for the respondent No.5.

***

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

Since these two writ petitions are between the same parties and

common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, they are being

disposed of by this common order.

The background facts

Petitioner No.1 is a proprietory concern and petitioner No.2 is

its proprietor.

SURESH KUMAR

2022.10.12 17:03

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No.21059 of 2018 (O&M) and

CWP No.26146 of 2018 (O&M)

Page 2 of 31

The subject matter of these Writ Petitions is property bearing

W-9, Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

This property was purchased under a register sale deed

dt.15.10.1971 in the name of Santosh Kumar Aggarwala (Respondent No.4)

by his late father Sukhdeo Prosad Aggarwala.

Initially, the petitioner No.1 was a partnership firm constituted

under a partnership deed dt.03.01.1972 (P-1) with Sajjan Kumar Aggarwala

(brother of respondent No.4), petitioner No.2, Smt. Shanti Devi Aggarwala

and Smt. Kusum Devi Aggarwala. The firm started business on the above

property with the consent of respondent No.4.

According to petitioner No.2, on 16.06.1987, the other partners

of the firm executed a general power of attorney in his favour authorizing

him to sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of the said plot.

In 1989-90, a loan was taken by respondent No.3 firm and

respondent No.4 from Allahabad Bank (respondent No.1) (for short ‘the

Bank”). The above mentioned property was given as security for the said

loan.

Petitioner No.2 contends that respondent No.4 relinquished his

right in the said property in favour of the petitioner No.2 after taking due

consideration from him and since 13.10.1997, all partners retired with their

own free will by settling their accounts, that the petitioner No.1 ceased to be

a partnership firm and became a proprietory concern with the petitioner No.2

as the sole proprietor.

Since there was a default committed by respondent No.3, the

Bank got issued a demand notice dt.07.02.2011 under Section 13(2) of the

SURESH KUMAR

2022.10.12 17:03

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP No.21059 of 2018 (O&M) and

CWP No.26146 of 2018 (O&M)

Page 3 of 31

SARFAESI Act, 2002 demanding

35,03,12,775/- from the respondent

No.3. Similar notice was also issued to respondent No.4, Sajjan Kumar

Aggarwala (brother of respondent No.4), Suresh Kumar Aggarwala and

Suresh Kumar Dorejka, who were guarantors to the said loan.

Thereafter notice dt.09.11.2011 under Section 13(4) of the Act

and a sale notice dt.22.12.2011 was issued by the Bank putting the above

property to sale on 31.01.2012.

SA 17 of 2012

On 24.01.2012, SA No. 17 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners

before the DRT-I, Chandigarh to set aside the sale notice dt. 22.12.2011 and

also to restrain the Bank from forcibly dispossessing them. Interim relief

was sought to restrain the Bank from alienating the property.

On 30.01.2012, the DRT-I, Chandigarh directed th