9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 3 which is a Reconstruction Company under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Securitisation Act" for short). The assets of respondent No. 7 were sought to be sold by inviting bids. The minimum expected offer was for Rs. 14 crores and the offers were to be given by 21st November, 2005. It appears that some 11 bidders who are called as "quoters" under the bid documents gave their offers. From amongst them, the petitioner was one whose offer was for Rs. 15,01,00,000. Three out of these were the highest bidders viz., one Proma Industries Ltd., Maxwell Ltd. and Jai Corpn. Ltd. (i.e., respondent No. 5 herein). They were subsequently calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject is to obtain the best price, all concerned parties who satisfy the pre-qualifications, ought to have been permitted to participate in the second round of negotiations. 5. Mr. Sakseria appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on the other hand, submitted that all these conditions, including condition No. 7 which is sought to be disputed, are part of a complete document and the petitioners had accepted the entire terms and conditions of the quotation by their specific letter dated 20th November, 2005. He points out that under rule 8(5) of the aforesaid Rules, there are four methods by which sale of the immovable property can be arranged. In the instant case, respondent No. 3-Asset Reconstruction Company has resorted to the first one viz., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November, 2005 and on 5th December, 2005 the necessary registration of the documents has also been effected. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. In our view, respondent No. 3 has followed the procedure which is fully permissible under the law. Obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets is permissible under rule 8(5)(a) of the relevant Rules. These are statutory rules framed under section 38 read with section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Rule 8(8) deals with sale by any method other than public auction or public tender and it provides that it shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing. The power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appearing for the petitioners makes a request that this statement be extended by further four weeks. Mr. Sathe appearing for respondent No. 5 states that he does not have any instructions to make any such statement and particularly because in his submission the petitioners have no right whatsoever. We quite see merit in the submission of Mr. Sathe. However, with a view not to prejudice the remedy of the petitioner in case he wants to avail of one further, we direct that respondent No. 5, will not create third party rights in the concerned property for a period of four weeks hereafter. 9. Without prejudice to the aforesaid request, a further request is made by Mr. Thorat that the goods of the petitioners lying in the property be released ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
