AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a desperate attempt of a borrower seeking to somehow or the other frustrate the endeavour of the State Financial Corporation to recover its dues. The petitioner is owner of an industrial plot No. 38, Sector 18, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon. We may notice that initially an area measuring 1500 sq. meters was stated to have been given possession of and accordingly a conveyance-deed was executed but subsequently on measurement the area was found to be more by 270 sq. meters and thus a separate possession certificate qua additional land was issued.
In the interregnum period, the petitioner availed of loan facilities from the respondent-corporation and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title documents. The petitioner failed to adhere to the financial discipline with the result ultimately in the year 2006 the possession of the plant, machinery and the plot was taken over by the Financial Corporation. The dispute did not even settle after that and an endeavour made by the Financial Corporation to sell the property at the minimum price of Rs. 911.26 lacs in January and February, 2013 evidencing no response. The result is that third endeavour is now sought to be made vide auction notice dated 17.07.2013 reducing the price as Rs. 720.00 lacs.
There is a three fold challenge laid before us.
The first challenge is that the advertisement seeking auction of the property mentioned the area as 1500 sq. meters while the actual area is 1770 sq. meters. The petitioner claims to have been protesting and seeking possession of 270 sq. meters. It is thus not the case of the petitioner that more than 1500 sq. meters are put to sale but its apprehension is that larger area may be given away without realizing the full potential of it.
We put to learned counsel for the petitioner that if the aforesaid is the position, then the petitioner should have volunteered to the Financial Corporation that 1770 sq. meters should be prescribed as the land area so that full value is realized and if additional amount over and above the dues is available, that would be credited to the petitioner. Infact, our apprehension is that if the Financial Corporation would have specified 1770 sq. meters as the land area, the petitioner would have challenged even that since what it claims to have mortgaged is 1500 sq. meters.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner.
The second plea is qua the reduction of valuation fixed as the basic price for the sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on valuation he has found that the property is worth much more. If it is so, the petitioner ought to have got a purchaser at the so called much greater value. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner is not being able to locate any purchaser. Two endeavors were made at a bid price of Rs. 911.26 lacs but to no avail. This means that there is no one in the market willing to pay this price. The respondent-corporation was thus left with no option but to lower the price and now the minimum price prescribed is Rs. 720.00 lacs. It is not as if it is being sold at that price but that is the reserve price and if there are bidders over and above that price, naturally it should go to the highest bidder. Once again there is no merit in this plea.
The third and the last part of the endeavour is to plead that the bridge loan which was advanced to the petitioner in the year 1995 was under duress carrying higher rate of interest and the said account should be converted into the Working Capital Limit which carries the lower rate of interest. The bridge loan is stated to be a coercive action of the respondent-corporation on the ground that the substantive part of it was to be utilized for purchasing the shares in public auction of the corporation which remained unsubscribed.
It is really late in the day for the petitioner now to plead that the bridge loan was not what he wanted. At the relevant stage, the grievance should have been made. In any case it was his business decision and there was no complaint that any threat was held out and who held out a threat from the respondent-corporation side. This plea is completely devoid of any merit. We are thus of the view that no case has been made out for interfering under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.