RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Vs. ASHWINI GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the Applicant has placed on record Affidavit of Service. Despite service, Respondents have failed to put appearance. Hence, I have taken the Court Receiver's Report presented before me for consideration.

(2.) On 15/10/2016 in a Petition filed by Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. who claimed a sum of Rs.5,12,05,413.00 , this Court recorded statement of the Respondents to pay certain amount on the dates indicated in the order, by way of an undertaking. The order provided for contingency that, in case if the installments as agreed are not paid, the Court Receiver, High Court shall be appointed as a Receiver in respect of the mortgaged properties and the Respondents were directed to forthwith hand over symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties to the Court Receiver. Upon the appointment of Court Receiver, an option was given to the Respondents to act as Agent of the Receiver in respect of the mortgaged properties and it was open for the Respondents to exercise such an option.

(3.) In the subsequent order i.e. dtd. 30/11/2018 the Court Receiver was permitted to sell the property on 'as is where is' basis after obtaining a valuation report from any empannelled valuer and the sale was directed to be conducted by public auction. Subsequent to these directions, a Valuer was appointed to assess the valuation, but during the interegnum, the debt payable to Reliance Capital Limited was handed over to Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.