High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 03 CAL CK 0100

Nibedita Housing Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs State Of West Bengal And Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 20 March 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajasekhar Mantha, J
CASE NUMBER
Temporary Number (AST) No. 16 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 363 words

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

Leave was sought in this matter in the morning on the ground of urgency. There is a prayer for dispensation of service of notice under Rule 26 of the Writ Rules of this Court.

This matter has been fixed at 2.00 p.m. today.

The writ petitioners are promoters. They have obtained diverse credit facilities from the Contai Co-operative Bank Limited. The outstanding dues as on 24.03.2020 are Rs.8,14,48779/-.

They are aggrieved by a sale proclamation notice under Section 122 read with Section 191 of the WBCS Act, 2006. The only ground asserted challenging the notice of proclamation is that the reserve price for the property has been fixed at an alleged undervalue of Rs.4,00,00000/-.

The writ petitioners annex, inter alia, two documents, first of which is dated 18th March, 2020 being the valuationreport by enlisted valuer of the Municipality valuing the land and building at Rs.8.48 crores. The valuation of only the land as per records of the Municipality is Rs.5.23 crores.

It however transpires from the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the projects conceived of on the said land involved constructions of three 11 storied buildings. As on date the petitioners have already sold 10 flats against which advances have been taken. Sale consideration for each flat for about Rs.28 lacks. Construction up to 2 floors has been completed.

The property is therefore encumbered.

This Court is therefore of the prima facie view that the encumbrances of the property would substantially reduce its market value and the same cannot be accepted as Rs.8.4 crores as stated by counsel for the petitioners.

There shall be no interim order at this stage.

The petitioners shall, however, give notice to the opposite parties particularly the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 and file affidavit of service to that effect on the next date of hearing.

Let this matter stand adjourned and be listed on 24.03.2020 when it is expected that the Bank through an authorised representative or learned counsel shall produce the relevant records particularly relating to valuation of the property being sold.

It is made clear that the sale is not interfered with today and may go on.