FRANCIS GEORGE Vs. INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Properties of the borrower, who had committed default has been brought for auction, in 2015, by sale cum e-auction notice dtd. 27/1/2015. Borrower has questioned the same, by filing an application under Sec. 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in S.A.No.57 of 2015 and after considering the rival submissions and taking note of the tripartite agreement dtd. 3/1/2014, vide order in S.A.No.57 of 2015 dtd. 16/6/2015, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II allowed the appeal, as hereunder.

(2.) Subsequently, the bank brought the property for auction, by sale cum e-auction notice dtd. 17/3/2017, which was once again challenged in another application under Sec. 17(1) of the Act, 2002 in 2017, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai. This time, after considering the submissions of the parties, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, vide order dtd. 11/7/2017 at paragraph Nos.8 and 9, ordered, as hereunder "8. Though the sale was not taken place on the E-auction date, the respondent has to prove that the reserve price was fixed as per the valuation report. But, the respondent bank failed to file the valuation report and failed to explain how they fixed the reserve price for the Schedule mentioned property for the impugned sale notice. Further, the respondent failed to prove that the sale notice was served to the applicant. Hence, I find there is violation of the Rules in Sale-cum-E-auction notice dt.17/3/2017 issued by the respondent and the SA has merit to be allowed.

(3.) Now for the third time, bank has issued e-auction notice dtd. 22/8/2017, bringing the properties for auction on 15/9/2017. Said notice is impugned on the grounds inter alia that the bank has arbitrarily reduced the upset price of the property, to Rs.4.00 Crores without following the procedure and valuation report.