SHIV KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.06.2012 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Appeal No. 110/2012 in S.A. No. 10/2010 (Delhi-II).

(2.) THE petitioners are co-owners of Property No. C-134-D, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pursuant to notice issued under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, possession of the aforesaid property was taken by defendant No. 1--Development Credit Bank Limited on 17.10.2008. The possession of the aforesaid property was handed over to the Court Receiver on 23.10.2010. Pursuant to the order passed by DRAT, the above-referred property was put to auction. The highest bid of Rs 2.45 crore was received as against the reserved price of Rs 2.40 crore. The Tribunal permitted the petitioners to bring a better buyer. This order was passed on account of the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.11.2011, whereby the reserved price was fixed by DRAT at Rs 2.40 crore. Pursuant to the permission granted by the Tribunal, the petitioners introduced two buyers, namely, M/s Quadros Impex Pvt. Ltd., which offered Rs 2.50 crore and M/s ADPS Consultants Pvt. Ltd. which offered Rs 2.55 crore. At this stage, respondent No. 2 M/s G.C.G. Enterprises Private Ltd. entered the fray and expressed willingness to purchase the aforesaid property. The Tribunal directed inter se bidding amongst the four bidders introduced by the petitioners, i.e., the bidder who had given bid of Rs 2.45 crore, respondent No. 2 and two bidders, namely, M/s Quadros Impex Pvt. Ltd., and M/s ADPS Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The bidders were also permitted to withdraw their offer before start of the process of inter se bidding. M/s Quadros Impex Pvt. Ltd. withdrew its offer and consequently, the inter se bidding took place only amongst three bidders. Respondent No. 2, which gave the bid for Rs 311 lakh was declared as the highest bidder. Admittedly, sale certificate to respondent No. 2 has already been issued on 30.05.2011 though it has not been registered so far. The grievance of the petitioners is that 25% of the bid amount of Rs 311 lakh was not deposited by respondent No. 1 on 19.04.2011 when the inter se bidding took place, the same having been deposited only on 23.04.2011. Yet another grievance of the petitioners is that the time for depositing the balance 75% of the sale price was extended by defendant No. 1 which it could not have done. The petitioners filed IA No. 422/2011 seeking fresh auction and also an order forfeiting the amount deposited by respondent No. Yet another application being IA No. 781/2011 was filed by them seeking re- auction of the property and permission to bring a better buyer, who was ready to offer Rs 325 lakh. Vide order dated 19.03.2012, both these applications were dismissed by the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2012, the petitioners filed the appeal which is still pending before DRAT.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has, in order to address the apprehensions of the petitioners, states before us, on instructions from Mr Vijay Verma, Manager/authorized representative of respondent No. 2, that respondent No. 2 shall not (i) create any third party interest in the property in question and shall not hand over possession of the property or any part of it to any other person; (ii) shall not induct any person in this property in any capacity; (iii) shall not carry out any addition, alteration or repair in the aforesaid property, without prior permission of the Tribunal; (iv) in case the appeals pending before the DRAT are allowed, shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the aforesaid property to the Court Receiver. We also direct that delivery of possession by Court Receiver to respondent No. 2 will not create any equities in its favour. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.