AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, states that the affidavit directed to be filed by the respondent, has been filed belatedly as he
was indisposed. Mr Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he has received a copy of the said affidavit.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bank concedes that till date, the Bank has not been adopting the practice of stating in the public notices issued
for auctioning mortgaged/attached properties as to whether the said properties are freehold or leasehold. We find it to be rather strange. If it is
clarified in the public notice that the property sought to be auctioned is freehold, then it is natural that many more bids would be received. All the
necessary information relating to a property sought to be auctioned by the Bank needs to be set out in the public notice, which should also include its
location, dimensions, measurements, status of freehold or leasehold, instead of simply mentioning the Municipal numbers/Khasra numbers and
addresses therein.
We are informed by learned counsels for the parties that all other Banks/Financial Institutions are also adopting the same practice of not furnishing
relevant details in the public notice in respect of the immovable properties proposed to be auctioned by them.
We are of the opinion that it is extremely desirable for all Banks/Financial Institutions to be as transparent as possible when putting immovable
properties, mortgaged with them/attached by Court order to auction, by furnishing all the relevant details that can make it an attractive proposition for
bidders to participate in the auctions conducted by them. This would also be in the larger public interest inasmuch as the best possible price for the
properties could be fetched when put to auction. We deem it appropriate to direct the respondent/Bank in the present proceedings to ensure that
henceforth, the public notices issued for auctioning all immovable properties under the SARFAESI Act, contain all the relevant details and state
whether the same is freehold or leasehold, give its measurement, location etc., including other relevant details for it to attract as many bids as is
possible.
A copy of the present order shall be furnished by the respondent/Bank to the Indian Banking Institution for it in turn, to communicate the same to all
the other Banks and Financial Institutions for information and compliance.
Coming back to the case in hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank states that even if all the secured assets/mortgaged properties, including
two residential properties of the petitioners are auctioned, the Bank will only be able to generate a sum of Rs.30 crores (approx), whereas the
outstanding liability of the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.78 crores. He submits that efforts have been made by the Bank twice to auction the
mortgaged properties, but no bid has been received till now. He further states that as the petitioners claim that their sundry debtors owe them a sum of
Rs.40 crore (approx), which position is not disputed by the petitioner No.2, Managing Director of the petitioner No.1/Company, who is present in
Court, he requests that the petitioners be directed to furnish the names and amounts owed to them, for the Bank to take steps to recover the said
amounts.
We are informed that the books of accounts of the petitioner No.1/Company are available at premises bearing Shop No.2520-21, Gali No.7, Beadon
Pura, Karol Bagh which is in the possession of the respondent/Bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if access is given to the said
premise, the petitioners will be in a position to furnish the list of the debtors with the relevant details to the Bank.
Mr Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank assures us that necessary cooperation shall be extended to the petitioners for opening the
premises in question and for accessing the books of accounts on the condition that the details be furnished to the Bank immediately.
Ordered accordingly.
As learned counsel for the petitioners states that no further orders are required to be passed in the present case, the petition is disposed of.
List on 14.11.2017 in the category of ‘Directions’ only for the respondent/Bank to report compliance of directions issued in paras 4 & 5
above.