CWP No.3340 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3340 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.3.2008 Narinder Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Bank of India and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Shri Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P-4) issued by the respondents-Bank in terms of Section 13(4)(d) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act') read with Rule 6(2)of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and further restraining the respondents from selling their residential houses and also for a direction to restore the possession of the said houses to them. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners had secured a Term Loan from the respondents-Bank for the construction of residential houses over plots No.332 and 333, Shivpuri-B, District Yamunanagar and after obtaining the loan, they made construction over CWP No.3340 of 2008 2 the said plots and started residing in the said residential houses along with their family. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that after paying some instalments of the term loan regularly, they became defaulters upon which the respondents-bank issued a notice on 25.8.2005 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. Thereupon the petitioners deposited some amount with the respondents-bank. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents-Bank assured that it will allow the petitioners to make the payment in instalments. However, in spite of the said deposit of the amount and the assurance given, the respondents issued the impugned notice under Section 13(4)(d) of the Securitisation Act for sale of the residential house of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said impugned notice on the ground that the residential house of the petitioners cannot be sold by the respondents in view of the provisions of Section 31 (g) of the Securitisation Act read with first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, we do not find any force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the property in dispute is a secured asset which has been specifically charged with the recoverable debt in question. Thus, the provisions of Section 31(g) of the Securitisation Act read with the first proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the CPC are not applicable in the present case. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not placed any material before this Court on the basis of which the illegality or the action of the respondents could be judged on any other ground. Moreover, the impugned action of the respondents is appealable under Section 17(1) of the Act and, therefore, we are not inclined to CWP No.3340 of 2008 3 invoke our jurisdiction under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE March 5, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE