AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P., J
Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the property of the petitioner has been brought to sale at a throwaway price.
The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that on an earlier occasion the bank itself had notified the reserve price of the property to be Rs.91 lakhs and in Ext.P3 sale notice, the reserve price of the property has been irrationally reduced to Rs.56 lakhs. It is submitted that this was done without taking a fresh valuation and there is a violation of Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
When this matter came up for consideration before this Court on 22.12.2021, this Court passed an order directing that the sale of the petitioner’s properties scheduled to be held on 28.12.2021 shall be confirmed only after getting further orders from this Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank points out that this writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the following facts:-
(1) The petitioner had earlier approached this Court at the time when the possession notice was issued by the bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and a learned Single Judge of this Court had granted to the petitioner the opportunity of clearing the liability in instalments. It is submitted that being dissatisfied with the terms on which the petitioner was permitted to clear the liability, the petitioner filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and that writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment, granting further time to the petitioner to clear the liability. It is pointed out that the Division Bench had directed as follows, while granting further time to the petitioner:
“4. We have considered the matter. So far as the three trucks are concerned, it would be open to the appellant or the bank to sell the same. If the appellant is able to get a purchaser and the bank is unable to get the purchaser for that price or above, the appellant would get the buyer to the bank and get the buyer deposit the entire money with the bank and thereafter the bank would give NOC for the sale of the trucks in question. In case the bank gets an offer higher than what the appellant gets, the bank would direct the appellant to produce the trucks and sell the same and give the benefit of the money so received, to the appellant. This part of the transaction has to be completed by the parties within one month from today. So far as the balance is concerned, the appellant may raise the money from any source he likes and pay the same to the Bank by 30.11.2017 and liquidate the entire dues with accrued interest up to date by that day. In the event of failure of either selling the trucks or liquidating the dues by the date aforesaid, the appellant would have to face the consequences as may arise upon action to be taken by the bank for realising its dues and no further indulgence would be granted to the appellant in relation thereto and no court shall interfere in the matter at the behest of the appellant. It is now for the appellant to take necessary steps and initiative in this regard.”
It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court had made it abundantly clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the directions contained in the judgment, no further indulgence will be shown and the petitioner will have to face the consequence of any action taken by the bank to recover its dues and further that no court shall interfere in the matter at the behest of the appellant.
(2) The petitioner had earlier approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.76/2018 against the dispossession notice and that securitisation application had been dismissed finding no ground to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the bank.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am clearly of the opinion that in the light of the categorical direction in Ext.P2 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, that if the petitioner fails to clear dues in the manner permitted, no further indulgence will be shown and no court shall interfere in the matter at the behest of the petitioner in the present writ petition, this writ petition is clearly not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the confirmation of sale shall be deferred till 17.8.2022 to enable the petitioner to seek any remedy that may be open to him.