AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Subbiah, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the first Respondent in DRC. No. 18/09 in R.P. No. 04/2009, dated
26.08.2010 whereby the Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the auction purchaser.
The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows :
The Petitioner is one of the partners of a Company namely Bharat Overseas Trading Company. In the year 1998, the said partnership firm had
borrowed a loan from the Respondent Bank to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs in respect of the packing credit facility. During the time of availing the loan,
two items of property were given as security. The first item of the property at New No. 12-A, Old Door No. 1694 at Khanpalayam, 3rd Street,
Madurai City was given as security and the other property was given as collateral security. Due to the financial constraint, the partnership firm was
closed and the Petitioner could not repay the loan to the Respondent Bank. Hence, the Respondent Bank filed a case in O.A. No. 246 of 2001
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. Subsequently, the said case was transferred and renumbered as T.A. No. 394 of 2007 before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal at Madurai. An exparte order was passed in the year 2007. When the Petitioner came to know the exparte order, he has
engaged an Advocate and filed an application to set aside the exparte order in I.A. No. 608 of 2007 on 05.12.2007. But the said application was
dismissed for default on 05.02.2009 and exparte decree was passed in favour of the second Respondent Bank. Subsequently, when the Petitioner
came to know about the exparte decree, he filed a petition in I.A. No. 1449 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition and I.A.
No. 1450 of 2009 for restoration and I.A. No. 1451 of 2009 was filed to stay the operation of the exparte decree. All the three applications are
still pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the meantime, sale proclamation was issued on 26.09.2009 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Hence, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 1456 of 2009 to stay the auction sale on 26.11.2009.
On 26.11.2009, the Recovery Officer has also passed an order staying the auction till 10.12.2009 subject to the conditions that the applicant
should deposit 25% of the DRC amount within a week and the applicant should deposit the balance amount within three months. The Petitioner
has deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as per the conditional order.
Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 12803 of 2009, challenging the order of Recovery Officer dated
26.11.2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 08.12.2009 directing the Petitioner to deposit 25% of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- on or
before 07.02.2010 and Anr. 25%of the amount on or before 07.04.2010 and thereafter to pay the balance amount before 07.06.2010. But in
spite of the effort made by the Petitioner to mobilise the amount to comply with the order of this Court, he could not mobilise the amount within the
stipulated time. Subsequently, when the Petitioner approached the second Respondent Bank after mobilising the amount, the second Respondent
Bank refused to receive the amount since the time limitation fixed by this Court had lapsed. Hence, the Petitioner approached the Hon''ble
Supreme Court for extension of time. But the S.L.P was dismissed.
While the situation stood thus, on 25.03.2010, the first Respondent issued sale certificate in favour of the auction purchasers for a sum of Rs.
15,03,000/-. Thereafter, the Petitioner was instructed to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the auction purchaser. Hence, the present
writ petition has been filed as against the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the first Respondent directing the Petitioner to vacate the premises
and hand over the possession to third and fourth Respondents who are the auction purchasers.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the property was sold for a lesser amount of Rs. 15,03,000/-. He further submitted
that had he been informed about the public auction of sale, he could have approached the bank and taken effective measures to pay the part of
DRC amount pursuant to the order dated 08.12.2009. Moreover, the applications filed by the Petitioners in I.A. Nos. 1449, 1450 and 1451 of
2009 are still pending and the same were not disposed of. Under such circumstances, the order passed by the first Respondent dated 26.08.2010
is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that though several opportunities were given to the Petitioner, he has not
come forward to utilise the same and his intention is only to drag on the proceedings endlessly. He further submitted that since now the sale
certificate was issued nothing survives in the writ petition to deliberate further. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials available on record.
The only grievance of the Petitioner is that he has not been informed about the public auction. Had he been informed about the public auction of
sale, he could have approached the bank and taken effective measures to pay the amount. Moreover, the applications filed by the Petitioner in I.A.
Nos. 1449, 1450 and 1451 of 2009 are still pending before the DRT and the same were not disposed of. Under such circumstances, the order
passed by the first Respondent dated 26.08.2010 is not sustainable. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondents that though several opportunities were given to the Petitioner, he has not come forward to utilise the same and his intention is only
to drag on the proceedings endlessly. But irrespective of the submissions, we find that the applications filed by the Petitioner in I.A. Nos. 1449,
1450 and 1451 of 2009 are still pending before the DRT. Therefore, we direct the first Respondent to dispose of the I.A. Nos. 1449, 1450 and
1451 of 2009 as early as possible and till such time, the first Respondent is directed to keep in abeyance of the order dated 26.08.2010.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.