SI2 MICROSYSTEMS PVT. LTD Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1- Bank of Baroda sanctioned a loan facility in favour of the Petitioners. The Petitioners did not repay the loan. On the application of the Respondent "Bank, the Debt Recovery Tribunal issued a recovery certificate against the Petitioners. Pursuant to the recovery certificate, the mortgaged asset was put to a sale in an auction. It was purchased by Respondent No.3-Auction Purchaser, and the sale certificate in his favour was issued. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an application stating that the Petitioners have a prospective buyer willing to give a higher offer than the Auction Purchaser and, therefore, the sale certificate in favour of the Auction Purchaser should be cancelled. The Recovery Officer rejected this application. The Petitioners did not file statutory appeal to challenge this order and are before us by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with their challenge.

(2.) The basic facts are not in dispute. Petitioner No.1 is a Company of which Petitioner No.2 is a Director, referred to as the Petitioners. The Petitioners availed of a cash credit facility of Rs.10.00 crores and a term loan facility of Rs.3.00 crores, totaling to Rs.13.00 crores, from Respondent No.1- Bank. The Petitioners mortgaged an industrial Plot numbered 52-A, Part of Survey Nos. 81, 91 and 58 of Chokkahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote, Bengaluru District. As the Petitioners did not repay the loan, on 28/9/2012, the Petitioners' account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by Respondent No.1 " Bank (the Bank). The restructuring proposal of the Petitioners Company was approved, and Rs.1.4 crores was transferred to the Bank. Thereafter, again in 2016, the Petitioner's account was declared an NPA account. On 2/1/2017, the Bank filed an Original Application No. 11 of 2017 in Debt Recovery Tribunal- II, Mumbai (DRT). The Bank sought a recovery of Rs.18.5 crores along with interest at 15.85% per annum. The DRT rendered the judgment on 18/1/2018 and a recovery certificate was issued against the Petitioners, directing the Petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.18.52 crores to the Bank.

(3.) By order dtd. 2/4/2019, the DRT transferred the matter to the Recovery Officer to recover the amount as per the certificate. On 24/2/2022, a Valuer- H.H.Longani, was appointed to value the mortgaged property, and he valued it for fair market value at Rs.3.83 crores. The recovery officer took the valuation report on record for the purpose of sale. On 8/3/2022, the Recovery Officer issued a notice for sale proclamation regarding the mortgaged property. On 5/4/2022, the Bank filed an application seeking fresh valuation of the mortgaged property. The Bank had submitted a valuation report given by the Valuer stating that the fair market value of the mortgaged property is Rs.7.42 crores. The Recovery Officer by order dtd. 7/4/2022 observed that the Bank should bring a bidder for the said amount; otherwise, the auction would proceed based on the valuation report submitted by Valuer H. H. Longani, the Valuer of the DRT. The Recovery Officer adjourned the proceedings to 19/5/2022, giving time more than a month. Neither the Bank nor the Petitioners brought any prospective bidder, nor was this order challenged. After more than five months, on 19/9/2022, the Recovery Officer issued a notice for the sale proclamation fixing the reserve price at Rs.3.84 crores on the basis of the valuation report. The auction sale was conducted on 10/11/2022. The Recovery Officer declared one M. Arun as the highest bidder as per his offer for Rs.3,84,00,000.00 and confirmed the sale. In the evening of that day, the Petitioners filed an application challenging the sale on the ground that it was undervalued. The Recovery Officer took the objection application of the Petitioners on record. By order dtd. 24/11/2022, the Recovery Officer rejected the application of the Petitioners. This order was not challenged in appeal by the Petitioners. It is informed during the arguments in this petition by the Petitioners that they filed a Writ Petition (L) No. 38469 of 2022 challenging the orders dtd. 10/11/2022 and 24/11/2022. The petition is pending and no interim order was sought or granted. On 12/12/2022, the Recovery Officer confirmed the sale in favour of M. Arun. A week thereafter, on 20/12/2022, the Petitioners filed another application for setting aside the sale confirmation stating that there is an offer of Rs.5.64 crores from one Vijay Gupta and a Demand Draft of Rs.1.41 crores was also sought to be tendered. On 22/12/2022, Respondent No.2 rejected the application filed by the Petitioners and appointed a Receiver. Sale certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No.3 on 30/12/2022. Thereafter, the present petition is filed on 5/1/2023. The petition was taken on board at the Petitioners' request on 16/1/2023. The Petitioners first had not joined M. Arun, Auction Purchaser, as a party Respondent; later, he was added as Respondent no.3. The Respondent no.3 has filed a reply affidavit and has opposed the petition.