Sanjay Kumar Garg vs IDBI Bank Ltd. and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to handover the power looms machines lying in the concerned factory premises and respondent-bank be directed to issue the amended certificate of sale as per the Rules. Shri Vishwajeet Mantri, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner submitted his tender for purchase of plant & machinery and stock lying on the industrial property in response to the tender notice dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure-1), the reserve price whereof was indicated to be Rs. 41.81 lacs. Petitioner deposited the earnest money. He has deposited the entire balance amount and has been issued the sales certificate on 17.09.2014 and the sale has been confirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken possession of those items from 16th October and 19th October, 2014 but possession of the power looms machines were not given to him. There were in all 64 power looms machines. Petitioner gave the written receipt to the respondents on 19.10.2014 for receiving the plant, machinery and stock without power loom machines. The respondents could not have, therefore, sold the power looms machines by inviting fresh tender vide Annexure-11 dated 28.11.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the public notice for sale dated 18.7.2014, the phraseology "details given in the tender document" immediately after "stocks" pertains to stocks alone and not for plant and machinery. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not covered by definition of aggrieved person and, therefore, even if he has wrongly filed a Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for appropriate interim order and the Debt Recovery Tribunal has rejected his application and kept the securitization application pending, that would not confer jurisdiction on the Debt Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, this writ petition should be entertained.

Shri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the tender documents were supplied to the petitioner which were fully understood by the petitioner, who thereupon participated in the tender process. The tender document clearly mentioned that the plant and machinery and stocks were proposed to be auctioned as per the detailed given in the tender document. Learned counsel referred to para 3 of the tender document giving brief description of the assets. In sub-para (a) thereof, details of land and building has been given and in sub-para (b), the details of plant and machinery and stock has been given. Learned counsel submitted that in sub-para (b), the list of inventories available in the factory premises has been given in which total 18 (17+1) items have been included, but power looms have not been included. It is submitted that power looms machines, being 64 in number, were costlier items and therefore it could not have fetched the amount of only Rs. 42.81 lacs, which was offered by the petitioner. Out of 64 power looms machines, 28 and 18 power looms machines are in other premises and that the respondents deliberately decided to auction them by a separate auction notice which is issued on 28.11.2014 (Annexure-11).

Having regard to the facts aforesaid, it is clearly evident that determination such a dispute cannot be made in writ jurisdiction. Petitioner if he considers that he wrongly approached the Deputy Recovery Tribunal, he may avail his remedy before the appropriate civil court because as per the tender documents, the inventories which the respondents are seeking to rely, does not include the power looms machines. If such fact is sought to be disputed by the petitioner i.e. that plant and machinery should include power looms, this Court cannot go into the contentious issues to determine so in the face of aforesaid documents and also rejection of his application for interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If otherwise the petitioner wants to pursue the remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, he may file appeal against the interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal or pursue the securitization application pending before the Tribunal.

With that observation, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The stay application also stands disposed of.