Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT

2016 (11) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT - TMI - Auction notice - Held that:- Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court, we have no doubt about the fact that undue haste was made by the creditor bank in holding the auction. The creditor bank could have waited for some time when the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal as well as the High Court before conducting the auction and c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hen another application was filed under Section 17(1) of the Act, the cause of action was different. At an earlier point of time, the issuance of notice as well as notice for sale of the flat had been challenged, whereas the subsequent application had been filed after the auction had been held. The cause of action in respect of both the applications was not same and therefore, in our opinion, the second application for a different cause of action was maintainable. - Thus we do not intend to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24.08.2011 rendered by the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and affirmed the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under : Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the principal shareholders, directors and persons in charge of Respondent No.1 Company. Respon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an and thus, the account was classified as Non-performing Asset with effect from 1.12.2008 in accordance with the directions of Reserve Bank of India. As on 31st December, 2008, a sum of ₹ 37,01,758.49 (Rupees Thirty seven lakh one thousand seven hundred fifty eight and forty nine paise), along with applicable interest @ 15% per annum and penal interest was outstanding against the said Respondents. 5. Accordingly, a notice dated 17th January, 2009 under Section 13 (2) of The Securitisation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lease or otherwise. The aforesaid notice was duly replied to by Respondent No.1 Company vide letter dated 14th March, 2009 by disputing the amount and requesting Respondent no. 4 bank to give certain credits. Respondent no.4 gave a reply vide its letter dated 20th March, 2009 to letter dated 14th March, 2009 by asserting that notice dated 17th January, 2009 had been correctly issued as per the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act. 6. It is apposite to state that Respondent No. 4 bank vide po .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the act of taking symbolic possession of the flat in question was illegal, without jurisdiction and was in violation of the Act and Regulations made thereunder, primarily for the reason that no advertisement was published in the newspaper in terms of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules and no possession notice under Rule 8 (1) was affixed on the said property and hence, prayed for quashing of notice dated 17th January, 2009 and also for quashing all steps taken under the Act. 8. Taking cognizance of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ta, Respondent nos.1 and 3 filed a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court and the High Court vide order dated 24th December, 2009 modified the order passed by the DRT to the extent that instead of paying a sum of ₹ 15 lakh to the bank before 26th December, 2009, bank guarantee for ₹ 10 lakh be furnished before 2nd January, 2010 and the hearing was adjourned to 4th January, 2010. 10. On 4th January, 2010, when the matter was taken up before the H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion was to take place on 6th January, 2010 and the reserve price of the flat was ₹ 1,48,00,000/-(Rupees one crore forty eight lakh only). 12. In terms of the aforestated notice dated 4th January, 2010, the Appellant (M/s Oasis Dealcom Pvt. Ltd) submitted its bid to purchase the flat, who was the sole bidder. Respondent no.4 bank, vide its letter dated 6th January, 2010 accepted the bid for a sum of ₹ 1,48,00,000/- and on the same day, confirmed the sale in terms of the provisions of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t Recovery Tribunal on 7th January, 2010, the Tribunal recorded the fact that the flat had been sold and therefore, virtually the proceedings had become infructuous. However, the matter was adjourned to 5th March, 2010, to enable the parties to complete the pleadings. However, on 14th January, 2010, the Respondent borrowers filed an application for depositing the amount payable but on the same day, taking judicial notice of the subsequent developments, the Tribunal dismissed the said application .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lant i.e. the auction purchaser, but the High Court disposed of the Petition as the matter was pending before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Tribunal passed an order dated 10th June, 2010 in O.A. No.4 of 2010 setting aside the sale certificate. However, it permitted the borrowers to make payment within three weeks and if the amount was paid within three weeks, the bank was directed to refund the purchase money to the Appellant with 8% interest thereon. 17. Being aggrieved by the said order, the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rchaser as well as the respondent bank separately challenged the validity of the said order dated 18th February, 2011 before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 24th August, 2011. 19. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 24th August, 2011, the present appeals have been filed by the auction purchaser . 20. The Appellant was represented by one of its Directors, Shri Agarwal, who appeared in person. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ailed to make payment after publication of notice in newspapers as per the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the property in question had been sold by holding an auction. He further submitted that the price offered by the Appellant was just and fair, though nobody else had participated in the bid. According to him, wide publicity had also been given to the auction. In view of the fact that the entire amount had been paid, according to him, the sale ought not to have been set aside. He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le in favour of the Appellant company. 21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent borrowers had submitted that several serious irregularities had been committed by the bank in conducting the auction. Requisite notice, as required as per the Rules, had not been given and he had supported the judgment delivered by the High Court. According to him, if for any reason the auction sale is postponed, the entire process for holding the auction should be started afresh and as no fresh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y the High Court. 23. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court, we have no doubt about the fact that undue haste was made by the creditor bank in holding the auction. The creditor bank could have waited for some time when the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal as well as the High Court before conducting the auction and confirming the sale. We do not find any reason to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version