TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht for can be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case? HELD THAT:- The material on record clearly depicts that ever since January, 2019 the petitioners had been interacting with the respondent-Bank, several meetings were held and they also participated in the Consortium Bank Meetings as invitees, but they have not paid any amount due especially after January, 2019, when the default started. The petitioners have admitted in their reply dated 10.7.2019 that they have neither made any payment of loan due nor made any effort to regularize the defaulted account in view of the enforcement action taken for recovery of GST dues by the GST Authorities - It is also not in dispute that the petitioners that as on the date of NPA i.e., 29.5.2019, the amount due to the bank was ₹ 142,73,29,479.23 ps. Inclusive of the principal amount not paid to the respondent-Bank. On that ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have not made any efforts to pay the amount due to the Bank subsequent to declaration of NPA on 30th April, 2019 till today. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioners dated 10.7.2019 Annexure-AD and 24.7.2019 Annexure-AF strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Private Limited and others vs. Union of India reported in 2015(4) SCC 770 para-54 especially to classify their account under which category it falls as NPA ; declare that the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the SARFAEASI Act ) i.e.., Demand Notice dated 13.5.2019 as per Annexure-AC is not applicable since their account never became NPA, consequently SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not applicable; issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 13.5.2019 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act, 2002 Annexure-AC and also the rejection of their application vide notice dated 22.7.2019 Annexure-AG issued under Order 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act as illegal, void and in violation of the principles of natural justice; direct the respondents not to take any steps in pursuance of notice of possession da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Bank, Vijaya Bank had also sanctioned a sum of ₹ 24.50 Crores based on pari-passu agreement in which Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singhi and M/s. Suman Singhi have stood as personal guarantors. However, the loan has been sanctioned as per sanction memo dated 3.2.2018 to M/s Steel Hyper Mart India (Pvt.) Ltd. By the Vijaya Bank and the proceedings under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act has been commenced through a Demand Notice dated 6.6.2019, Annexure-E. They made representation requesting for enhancement of the work capital limited and the same was revised upto ₹ 162 Crores on 20.12.2018 as per Annexure-F. They deposited the Memorandum of Title Deeds to the Bank on 22.12.2017 and 27.2.2018 as per Annexures-G and H. The account of the petitioners was in healthy condition and there was no default committed by them. In the first week of January, 2019, the Bank had processed and recommended for enhancement of OCC Limit from ₹ 162 Crores to ₹ 225 Crores and ₹ 63 Crores proposed enhancement to be funded by the 3rd Banker M/s. Canara Bank, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-1 under consortium funding as per their letter dated 1.8.2019 , Annexure-M. On 8.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trial Court, Bangalore and the trial Court rejected the anticipatory bail to both petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who stood as Guarantors to the Banks. Since the petitioners were busy in safeguarding their personal liberty, the entire business was stopped from 9.1.2019 upto the date. 7. It is submitted by the petitioners that the competent authority to waive the interest and to grant reduction in principal loan amount is the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Bank or the Competent Authority of Indian Bank. The Assistant Bank Manager has no jurisdiction to deal with One Time Settlement Application dated 25.4.2019. The rejection of the proposal summarily by the AGM of the Branch on 29.4.2019 is without jurisdiction. They further submit that the transactions in the OCC accounts by the Banks from 10.1.2019 as per the letter dated 17.1.2019 clearly establishes that their had not become NPA and it was because of the arbitrary act of the Bank in stopping the debit transactions in their OCC accounts. Their business had been paralyzed because of the act of the AGM of the Indian Bank. Hence, the condition precedent to apply SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not at all in existence and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accounts have become Non- Performing Assets. 11. It is further contended that the 1st respondent received the reply dated 10.7.2019 from the petitioners in pursuance of the demand notice dated 13.5.2019, issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by it for a total sum of ₹ 142,73,29,479.23 ps. (Rupees One Hundred Forty Two Crores, Seventy Three Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Nine and Twenty Three Paise only) which is based strictly on the relevant loan accounts maintained by the bank and regularly monitored by it s Directors and Financial Personnel from time to time and the said loan account had been operated by the 1st petitioner. Therefore, there is no need for the Authorised Officer to provide breakup of dues or the basis for the interest calculation while issuing the Demand Notice in terms of the SARFAESI Act. It is further contended that the petitioners ever since January, 2019 had been interacting with the respondent-Bank, several meetings were held and also participated including as invitees to the Consortium Banks Meetings, etc. but had not paid any amount especially after January, 2019 when the default started. 12. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in several discussion including in the consortium meetings since January 2019 preceded by letters of the bank, legal notice, etc., calling upon them to pay the loan dues. Significantly in the alleged OTS offer letter dated 25.4.2019 as against the loan due of ₹ 141,32,53,484.23 ps. the petitioners had offered a total payment of a ridiculously low amount of ₹ 85 Crores to be paid in several months which is virtually making a mockery of their liability to pay the loan dues to the Bank. Therefore, the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands especially after availing sufficient time for regularizing the loan accounts and to interact with the Bank. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners cannot now contend that there is any deficiency or short fall in the reply of the Bank dated 19.7.2019 to their representation dated 13.5.2019, as per the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Ltd., -vs- Blue Coast Hotels Ltd reported in (2018)15 SCC 99, and hence non-compliance of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act cannot be of any avail to the debtor whose conduct has been merely to seek time and not to repay the loan as promised on several occasi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and in terms of Moveable Securities, the petitioners had executed Hypothecation Agreement for stock Stored in Godowns situated at Jigani Unit at Bengaluru and also Shoolagiri Unit of Hosur by way of Hypothecation Agreement and also Working Capital Consortium Agreement by way of ceding the Pari Passu Charges between both the Banks. The petitioners had fully availed the loan facility and subsequently failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction and committed the breach by defaulting in repayment. They had not repaid the interest since January, 2019 onwards on the outstanding due amount inspite of repeated requests and reminders by the respondent- Banks and violated the terms and conditions of the sanctioned letter and loan documents. They also failed to regularize the Working Capital Loan Account with respondent No.4. Therefore, respondent No.4 classified their CCH Loan account as NPA on 29.5.2019 due to non-servicing of interest from the last 90 days as per IRAC Norms of RBI. Both the respondents-Banks on 24.4.2019 issued legal notice calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of ₹ 141,32,53,484.23 to respondent No.1 and ₹ 24,93,08,781/- to respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 31(j) of the SARFAESI Act, the case of the petitioners does not fall under the SARFAESI Act. 20. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that under the provision of the SARFAESI Act, it is necessary to notify and classify the account as Standard , Sub-standard default and classify as losses and willful defaulters as a pre-requisite for issuance of Demand Notice under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. He would further contend that the petitioners had paid upto date amount due to the Bank, but could not pay after January, 2019 only because of the raid of the GST officials on their office, and godown at Hosur and Bangalore were seized. In view of the raid conducted on 22.1.2019, the bank had voluntarily stopped the transaction in cash credit account and debits were not allowed on 9.1.2019 which was without notice and the petitioners were directed to appear before them on 22.1.2019. Therefore, the petitioners have not committed any default as alleged by the bank so as to attract the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 21. The main grievance of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar dated 30.7.2019 where the rate of interest is 5%, and the Central Government itself would be the Guarantor and even the NPA account holder of any corporate is also entitled to avail loan facility at 5%. Therefore, if six months time is granted, the entire money (principal + interest) would be paid by the Government of India itself under the said Circular to the Banks without any discounting the interest. 25. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that if the secured creditor failed to classify NPA assets, it is treated as arbitrary and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be invoked. Before invocation of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, classification of NPA is mandatory. In the absence of classification of NPA and failure to follow the norms and circular of RBI, at that stage, the writ petition is maintainable and the bar of alternative remedy would not come into picture. 26. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the petitioners never committed default and it is only at the instance of the GST authorities, who conducted raid on the office of the petitioners at Karnataka and Tamilnadu, the bank prevented the petitioners from availing cash c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pril 1, 2009. As in the case of substandard assets, rescheduling does not entitle the bank to upgrade the quality of an advance automatically. A loan classified as doubtful has all the weaknesses inherent in assets that were classified as substandard, with the added characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently known facts, conditions and values highly questionable and improbable. 29. A Reliance is placed upon Guideline 3.2.4- Loss Assets which states that a loss is one where loss has been identified by the bank or internal or external auditors or by the Co-operation Department or by the RBI inspection but the amount has not been written off wholly or partly. In other words, such an asset is considered un-collectible and of such little value that its continuance as a bankable asset is not warranted although there may be some salvage or recovery value. 30. Relying upon Guidelines - 3.3.1 - Basic considerations, 3.3.2-Advances Granted under Rehabilitation Packages Approved by BIFR/Term Lending Institutions, 3.3.3-Internal System for Classification of Assets as NPA, the learned Senior Counsel contended that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioners. He would further contend that on 27.9.2017, the 3rd respondent-Bank sanctioned financial assistance (take over from SBI) by way of Open Cash Credit of ₹ 137,50,00,000/- for the purpose of business of Steal and Iron and the credit limit was extended up to ₹ 137,50,00,000/- on 20.12.2018 which was renewed for a period of one year subject to terms and conditions. On 14.1.2019 since the petitioners had already drawn the entire OCC limit and utilized the same, the Bank stopped the borrower from overdrawing the amount and they were not allowed to over draw the loan account. The said stoppage of over drawing from the sanctioned limit had no embargo on the borrower to repay the loan. As on that date, the outstanding due payable by the petitioners to the 1st respondent-Indian Bank was ₹ 137,47,57,028/-. From 30.11.2019 till 30.4.2019, there was no payment of interest, no operation in the account and outstanding due was more than the limit sanctioned by the 3rd respondent-Indian Bank. The statement of accounts produced along with the statement of objections by the 1st respondent clearly depicts that as on 31.1.2019, the outstanding due payable b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % of the principal amount with interest. He would further contend that the petitioners availed the loan and utilized the total sanctioned loan amount of ₹ 137,50,00,000/-, committed default by not paying interest and also the principal amount, and as on 30.4.2019, the day on which the account has been classified as NPA, the total outstanding amount due is ₹ 142,73,29,479/-. It is his further contention that as the petitioners had withdrawn 100% of the principal loan amount and not paid the interest right from 1.1.2019 and as they were liable to pay more than 100% of the principal amount with interest, the provisions of Section 31(j) of the SARFAEASI Act as alleged is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. It is further contended that as per the RBI Guidelines, the asset (financial assets means any debt or receivable secured by mortgagor or change on immoveable property, etc., as defined under Section 2(1) of the of the SARFAEASI Act) has been classified as NPA. The Classification of the Asset is purely an internal business of the Bank and as per the Guideline 2.1.2, with a view to move towards International best practices and to ensure greater transparency is 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Bank of Travancore vs- Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 (Paras 10, 15, 16 and 17). Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. VI - POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 39. In view of the rival contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is: Whether the petitioners have made out any case to interfere with the impugned notices issued by the respondent-Bank both under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAEASI Act and any relief as sought for can be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case? VII CONSIDERATION 40. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 41. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Bank has sanctioned financial assistance to the petitioners on 27.9.2019 by way of Cash Credit Facility of ₹ 137,50,00,000/- and they had deposited the Title Deeds in respect of the immoveable properties in favour of the Indian Bank-respondent No.1 on 22.12.2017. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ager, that they were busy in De-seizure proceedings including moving an anticipatory bail not only in Karnataka but also in Tamilnadu as there was fear of arrest which was spread all over India and in non-observance of law, mass arrests were made. Therefore to protect their reputation, they were involved in the proceedings of the anticipatory bail in safeguarding their personal liberty. Therefore, their entire business was stopped from 9.1.2019 up to the date, which clearly indicates that the petitioners have not made any effort to pay the amount due or interest from 30.1.2019 till 30.4.2019 inspite of legal notice issued by the Bank. Admittedly, the reply of the petitioners to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which was rejected by the bank, is not challenged Thereby the respondent-Bank has proceeded to issue notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and on that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 45. The material on record clearly depicts that ever since January, 2019 the petitioners had been interacting with the respondent-Bank, several meetings were held and they also participated in the Consortium Bank Meeti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty or body; (b) in any other case, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by the Reserve Bank; Guideline 2.1.2 of the R.B.I Master Circular dated 1.7.2015 reads as under: 2.1.2. A non performing asset (NPA) is a loan or an advance where; i. interest and/ or instalment of principal remain overdue for a period of more than 90 days in respect of a term loan, ii. the account remains out of order as indicated at paragraph 2.2 below, in respect of an Overdraft/Cash Credit (OD/CC), iii. the bill remains overdue for a period of more than 90 days in the case of bills purchased and discounted, iv. the instalment of principal or interest thereon remains overdue for two crop seasons for short duration crops, v. the instalment of principal or interest thereon remains overdue for one crop season for long duration crops, 2 DBOD-MC on IRAC Norms - 2015 vi. the amount of liquidity facility remains outstanding for more than 90 days, in respect of a securitisation transaction undertaken in terms of guidelines on securitisation dated February 1, 2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops. 50. In the case of Dwar ikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. -vs- Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. And Another reported in (1997) 6 SCC 450, the Hon ble Supreme Court while considering the bank guarantee at pagragraphs-29 and 31 has held as under: 29. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not consider it necessary to refer to various judicial pronouncements of this Court in which the principles which have to be followed while examining an application for grant of interim relief have been clearly laid down. The observation of the High Court that reference to judicial decisions will not be of much importance was clearly a method adopted by it in avoiding to follow and apply the law as laid down by this Court. Yet another serious error which was committed by the High Court, in the present case, was not to examine the terms of the bank guarantee and consider the letters of invocation which had been written by the appellant. If the High Court had taken the trouble of examining the documents on record, which had been referred to by the trial court, in its order refusing to grant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. *** 55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. 15. It is the solemn duty of the court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order. 16. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter-affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference. 17. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. [ Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450] , observing: (SCC p. 463, para 32) 32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Section 13 in case of non-compliance with notice within 60 days. The creditor must apply its mind to the objections raised in reply to such notice and an internal mechanism must be particularly evolved to consider such objections raised in the reply to the notice. There may be some meaningful consideration of the objections raised rather than to ritually reject them and proceed to take drastic measures under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Once such a duty is envisaged on the part of the creditor it would only be conducive to the principles of fairness on the part of the banks and financial institutions in dealing with their borrowers to apprise them of the reason for not accepting the objections or points raised in reply to the notice served upon them before proceeding to take measures under subsection (4) of Section 13. Such reasons, overruling the objections of the borrower, must also be communicated to the borrower by the secured creditor. It will only be in fulfilment of a requirement of reasonableness and fairness in the dealings of institutional financing which is so important from the point of view of the economy of the country and would serve the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Section 13(2) it is clear that the said sub-section proceeds on the basis that the borrower is already under a liability and further that, his account in the books of the bank or FI is classified as substandard, doubtful or a loss. The NPA Act comes into force only when both these conditions are satisfied. Section 13(2) proceeds on the basis that the debt has become due. It proceeds on the basis that the account of the borrower in the books of bank/FI, which is an asset of the bank/FI, has become non-performing. Therefore, there is no scope of any dispute regarding the liability. There is a difference between accrual of liability, determination of liability and liquidation of liability. Section 13(2) deals with liquidation of liability. Section 13 deals with enforcement of security interest, therefore, the remedies of enforcement of security interest under the NPA Act and the DRT Act are complementary to each other. There is no inherent or implied inconsistency between these two remedies under the two different Acts. Therefore, the doctrine of election has no application in this case. 24. Section 13(3) inter alia states that the notice under Section 13(2) shall give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower, to pay the secured creditor towards liquidation of the secured debt. 55. As could be seen from the documents 2 and 3 produced along with the memo by the respondents on 18.11.2019, the respondents have classified the assets in terms of the dictum of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied upon paragraphs-23 and 24, in the very judgment in paragraphs-33 and 35, it is held as under: 33. Section 17 of NPA Act confers right to appeal. It inter alia states that any person including borrower, aggrieved by exercise of rights by the secured creditor under Section 13(4), may make an application to the DRT as an appellate authority within forty-five days from the date on which action under Section 13(4) is taken. That application should be accompanied by payment of fees prescribed by the 2002 Rules made under the NPA Act. A proviso is added to Section 17(1) by amending Act 30 of 2004. It states that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower. By way of abundant caution, an Explanation is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the DRT Act read with Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 ( 1994 Rules ). The Central Government, however, found that a borrower who was entitled to carry the matter further against the action taken under Section 13(4) was also required to pay court fees which give rise to difficulties and, therefore, it enacted the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2004 ( Order 2004 ) under Section 40 of the NPA Act to make provisions for levying fees in the matter of filing of application/appeal under Sections 17 and 18 of the NPA Act respectively. We quote hereinbelow the contents of the said Order, 2004: NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 40 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following Order to make the provisions of levying of the fee for filing of appeals under sections 17 and 18 of the said Act, being not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, to remove the difficulty, namely: - Therefore the said judgment is in no way helpful to the petitioners. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts as NPA after 90 days as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(1)(o) and as per the RBI Guideline 2.1.2 after 90 days. Therefore, the said judgment is in no way assistance to the petitioners . Infact paragraphs-38 and 39 of the very judgment read as under: 38. To make any attempt to define the expression 'non-performing asset' valid for the millions of cases of loan transactions of various categories of loans and advances, lent or made by different categories of creditors for all time to come would not only be an impracticable task but could also simply paralyse the entire banking system thereby producing results which are counter productive to the object and the purpose sought to be achieved by the Act. 39. Realising the same, the Parliament left it to the Reserve Bank of India and other regulators to prescribe guidelines from time to time in this regard. The Reserve Bank of India is the expert body to which the responsibility of monitoring the economic system of the country is entrusted under various enactments like the RBI Act, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Various banks like the State Bank of India, National Housing Bank, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution of India. The petitioners have got an alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the same as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court time and again stated supra. VIII - CONCLUSION 62. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the point raised in the present writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the respondents-Banks under the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as sought for in the present writ petition in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 63. However, it is needless to observe that it is always open for the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if so advised and in accordance with law. 64. Interim order earlier granted by this Court in this writ petition will enure to the benefit of the petitioners for a period of 45 days fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
