M/S. DEVI TRADERS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has raised the challenge to the first respondent's order dated 17-6-2006 (Annexure-O) in exercise of the power conferred by Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for short). By the said order, the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has authorised the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Gulbarga to take the possession of the property in question and hand it over to the Authorised Officer of the second respondent-Bank. The petitioner had availed of the financial assistance from the respondent 2. As a security for the repayment of the loan, the petitioner mortgaged the property in question to the respondent 2. As the petitioner committed default in the payment of the loan and the interest accrued thereon, the second respondent-Bank resorted to the proceedings under SARFAESI Act. The outstanding balance is stated to be Rs. 8,61,690/-, as on the date of the issuance of the impugned order. The respondent 2 sought the assistance of the respondent 1. Invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the respondent 2 passed the order authorising the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Gulbarga to take the possession of the property in question and handover its possession to the Authorised Officer of the second respondent-Bank. It is this order, which is called into question.

(2.) Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question is undersold. Though its market value is Rs. 35,00,000/-. It is sold at about Rs. 20,00,000/-. He submits that there is discrepancy in the numbers shown in the impugned order and the notice on one hand and between impugned order and the loan documents on the other hand. As the petitioner did not have the notice of the proceedings, he could not effectively resist the same, so contends Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar. He submits that the petitioner is also trying to sort out the issue with the respondent 5.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Hema L. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the respondent 2 denies that there is underselling. She submits that nothing survives for any consideration of this petition in view of the subsequent development of auctioning the house property in question in favour of the respondent 5 and collecting the entire sale consideration of Rs. 20,50,000/-. She submits that after deducting the petitioner's dues of Rs. 8,61,690/- the balance sale consideration is credited to the account of the petitioner. She further submits, on instructions, that the petitioner has also withdrawn the amounts so credited to its account.