Sanvi Weatex Ltd. vs Bank Of India And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

The application (M.A. No. 560/ 2011) has been filed by the respondent Bank for the modification of order dated 30.6.2011, to the effect that in case the Bank is able to get a buyer willing to offer a price higher than the price offered by the buyer brought by the appellant, the property be sold to him and also that the appellant shall sell the property under intimation to the Bank. This Tribunal, by order dated 30.6.2011, while observing that the learned trial Court had given the appellant an interim relief on deposit of Rs. 6 crores, which he did not have, and acceding the request of the appellant to sell its property bearing No. 436, Deepali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34, which was likely to fetch more than Rs. 7 crores, permitted the appellant to sell that property without prejudice to the rights of the parties, as the Counsel for the respondent did not object to it.

I have heard Mr. Naveen Pushkarna for the applicant Bank and Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Sr. Advocate, accompanied by Mr. Anil Panwar, Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Mr. Pushkarna has submitted that the Bank had got the valuation of that property done by its valuer and according to the valuation report, the present market value of the property is approximately Rs. 13.5 crores and its realizable value is Rs. 10.8 crores and as such the valuation of the property submitted by the appellants as Rs. 7 crores is much less than its actual value. He has also submitted that the Bank is in the process of identifying a better buyer so that the property could fetch better value than the one suggested by the appellant and accordingly the order of this Tribunal requires modification to the extent that if the Bank is able to get a buyer offering higher price than the price suggested by the appellant, the property be sold to the buyer of the Bank. In support of his contention, Mr. Pushkarna has drawn my attention to the report of the valuer, Annexure-1.

Mr. Mehra, on the other hand, has strongly objected to the modification of the order on the ground that the order dated 30.6.2011 stood complied with as the said property had been sold for a sum of Rs. 6,31,21,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 6,03,51,000/- has been paid by the buyer and the balance of Rs. 27,70,000/ Is to be paid by him on receipt of the original document. He further submits that the amount of Rs. 6,03(51,000/- has already been deposited and, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the same is with the Bank.

Perusal of the record shows that the appellant had availed of a loan facility from the respondent - Bank after mortgaging its properties with it, but as the loan account became Irregular, the Batik took action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SRFAESI Act'). In an appeal filed before the DRT against an order of the Recovery Officer, the learned DRT directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 crores, which was assailed by it before this Tribunal on the ground that it did not possess the fund, but offered to deposit the amount provided it is allowed to sell one of the secured properties, namely, the residential property at Pitampura, Delhi, which was likely to fetch more than Rs. 7 crores, and undertook to deposit the entire sale proceeds with the Bank which would not be less than Rs. 6 crores. This Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal, vide order dated 30.6.2011, permitted the appellant to sell that property within 15 days to which the Counsel for the Bank had no objection. But, since the appellant was praying for a month's time to sell the property, the Tribunal granted him 20 days' time to dispose of the property and deposit the amount. It was, however, also made clear that if the amount is not deposited within the given time, the Bank could proceed as per the SRFAESI Act.

It appears that the appellant, vide its letter dated 20.7.2011, requested the Bank to accept the demand drafts totalling to Rs. 6,03,51,000/- and to release the original title documents of the property. The Bank, however, did not accept the drafts and vide its letter dated 21.7.2011 informed the appellant that the Bank had already moved an application on 11.7.2011 for modification of the order dated 306.2011 in which this Tribunal, vide order dated 13.7.2011, had issued notice to the appellant and as such the matter had become sub judice. It was also stated that even otherwise the appellant had not complied with the order of this Tribunal within the given time which had expired.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. WP(C) No. 5194/2011 and CM. No. 10536/2011 has observed that the petitioner (appellant herein) had sold the property within the given period of 20 days and that it informed the respondent Bank vide its letter dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure R-2). The drafts, which were of two Banks, namely, Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and Central Bank of India, New Delhi, were prepared from 15.7.2011 to 20.7.2011. This clearly shows that the property was sold out prior to 15.7.2011 and only the drafts were got prepared subsequently up to the last date, i.e., 20.7.2011 and all the drafts totalling more than Rs. 6 crores were offered to the Bank within the time given by this Tribunal. As the appellant has been permitted to sell the property in question without there being any objection by the respondent Bank, which fact is not disputed and the property has already been sold out and the amount of sale consideration has also been deposited with the Bank, in pursuance of the order dated 6,9.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court, passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the question of Identifying a better buyer now by the Bank does not arise and since the said order stood complied with within the given time, it cannot be modified as prayed. The application is, therefore, devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law.