STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. STEPHEN BERNARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent along with his wife, availed credit facilities from the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore and committed default. The Bank initiated securitization proceedings in the year 2016. While so, SBT merged with the SBI and hence, petitioner Bank continued the proceedings and took measures for getting physical possession of the secured assets. Challenging the proceedings under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the first respondent filed SA No.268 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The application was dismissed by the DRT on 10.04.2018. Thereupon, the first respondent challenged that order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in AIR (SA) 268 of 2018, which got rejected on 30/08/2018. Thereafter, the secured assets were notified for sale. The first respondent challenged those proceedings in W.P.(C) No.919 of 2020. That writ petition having been dismissed, he filed W.A.No.503 of 2020. The writ appeal was also dismissed vide Ext.P5 judgment dated 11.03.2020. Undeterred, the first respondent preferred Special Leave Petition, which the Supreme Court refused to entertain. While dismissing the SLP under Ext.P6 order dated 06.12.2021, the Apex Court observed that it will be open for the first respondent to approach the DRT against the action of the petitioner Bank as and when such proceedings are initiated and the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(2.) Meanwhile, the petitioner proclaimed the secured assets for sale by notice dated 11.10.2021, fixing the date of sale as 09.11.2021. The notice of sale and further proceedings was challenged unsuccessfully and repelled by Ext.P4 judgment. The auction sale was conducted on 09.11.2021 and some properties were sold for a total consideration of Rs.97,75,000.00 . Thereafter, the petitioner Bank issued sale notice dated 07/12/2021 scheduling sale of the balance two properties on 29.12.2021. The first respondent challenged Ext.P12 notice and further proceedings before the DRT in S.A.No.355 of 2021. By the impugned order dated 28.12.2021, the DRT interdicted confirmation of the sale if any conducted, subject to the applicant depositing a sum of Rs.1.50 Crores to the petitioner Bank, out of which a sum of Rs.75 lakhs is to be paid on or before 25.01.2022 and another Rs.75,00,000.00 on or before 22.02.2022. The petitioner was given the liberty to confirm the auction sale, if the applicant failed to deposit any part of the sum as ordered. This writ petition is filed by the Bank aggrieved by Ext.P13 order.

(3.) Sri.Liju V.Stephen, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the action of the Bank is ill-motivated. The attempt is to wreak vengeance against the first respondent for approaching the Insurance Ombudsman and securing an award containing scathing remarks against the bank officials. According to the learned Counsel, the amount claimed is highly exaggerated and the attempt of the Bank is to sell valuable immovable properties to persons of their choice for paltry amounts. Reliance is placed on the observations in Ext.P6 order of the Apex Court to contend that the first respondent has been given the liberty to agitate all issues before the DRT. The first respondent having done so, the Tribunal was fully justified in passing the interim order. Moreover, the Bank's interest having been safeguarded by the direction to pay portion of the debt, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.