S.V.RAMASWAMY Vs. H & M INFRASTRUCTURES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being the guarantors to the 2003 loan availed by the 4th respondent herein are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order dtd. 18/7/2024, whereby appeal in S.A.No.4/2016 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein came to be allowed by setting aside Debt Recovery Tribunal's order dtd. 28/4/2023 entered in S.A.No.146/2020. The DRT-II having favoured petitioners' said S.A., had set aside the Sale Certificate with a direction to refund the sale consideration with interest to the purchasers.

(2.) FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:

(3.) Learned Sr. Advocates Sri.K Kasturi and Sri.D.R. Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioners argued that under the scheme envisaged inter alia in Rules 8 & 9 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Rules, 2002, once the highest bidder fails to comply with the condition, his initial deposit should be forfeited and the property should be put to fresh auction; that being the position of law, the negotiated sale in favour of respondent Nos.1 & 2 who happened to be bidders next below the highest, is unsustainable. The learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioners on being asked as to what should happen to the interest of the buyers, came forward of course, on the instruction of his client to pay Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (Rupees One crore) only, by way of solatium and to that effect, filed a Memo in the open court,. He also pointed out that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 also have committed default in not remitting the remainder of the amount within the stipulated thirty days and therefore, sale made in their favour needs to be invalidated. In support of this submission, they pressed into service certain Rulings.