BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAI KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of the judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2023 [hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Judgment] passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the suit filed by the Respondent [Plaintiff before the Commercial Court] was partly decreed in CS(COMM) No.2243/2019.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present Appeal are that the Appellant Bank, acting as a secured creditor under RFA(COMM) 50/2023 the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as „SARFAESI Act"], issued a Public Notice on 28/11/2018 inviting bids for the sale of properties situated at H-3, H-3A, and H-4, UPSIDA Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, Uttar Pradesh. The properties had been given on lease by the U.P. State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) to the Bank's borrower, M/s Ashoka Machine Tools International Pvt. Ltd., and served as collateral security for the repayment of dues.

(3.) On 28/11/2018, the Appellant issued a Public Notice for e-auction of the said properties. The notice unequivocally stipulated that the sale would be conducted on an "As is where is basis", "As is what is basis", and "Whatever there is basis". Relevant to this dispute, Clause 12 of the Terms and Conditions of the auction notice provided: