THIRUMURUGAN Vs. EBRAMUSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Bank/second respondent had initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of the secured asset mortgaged by one Dr. Balasubramanian for the loan amount availed by M/s. G.K. Movie Land/4th respondent herein and took possession of the said property on 5.3.2005 and brought the same for sale in auction, wherein, the petitioners herein stood as successful bidders and subsequently, the sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was also issued in their favour. While so, the first respondent who claims to be the purchaser of the secured asset by way of a sale deed, dated 14.8.2009 from the legal heirs of Late Dr. Balasubramanian, the respondents 6 to 8 herein, filed an appeal in S.A. No. 280 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, challenging the auction sale notice issued by the 2nd respondent bank, wherein, an order of interim stay came to be granted subject to the condition that the first respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs on or before 18.1.2010, however, subsequently, the said order of interim stay came be vacated since the above said condition was not complied with by the first respondent.

(2.) The legal heirs of Late Dr. Balasubramanian had also challenged the auction sale notice by way of SA No. 214 of 2009 and obtained an order of interim stay, however, by order, dated 12.11.2009, the said order of interim stay came to be vacated on the ground there was a suppression of facts. Thereafter, as there was no legal impediment, the second respondent bank proceeded with the sale and conducted the same on 15.5.2010, wherein, the first petitioner herein stood as successful bidder and he deposited 25% of the sale proceeds and thereby, the sale came to be confirmed in his favour.

(3.) While that be so, the first respondent came forward with S.A. No. 155 of 2010 before the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the above said sale, on various grounds including that there was a violation of terms of sale inasmuch as, the first petitioner, being the successful bidder had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period. However, by order, dated 20.12.2010, the Tribunal dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent filed an appeal in R.A. (SA) No. 41 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the same, the first respondent came forward with an application in I.A. No. 694 of 2013 in R.A. (SA) No. 41 of 2011, seeking permission to raise additional grounds. Resisting this application, the petitioners have also filed their counter affidavit.