BISHNU DEVI SHAW Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated August 21, 2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 144 of 2011 by which the appeal is dismissed. The Predecessor-in-Interest of the present petitioner namely Ramji Shaw, since deceased, was the absolute owner of the Premise No. 135/77, Girish Ghosh Road, Belurmath and put the said property as colateral security with the opposite party no.1 (bank in short) against the cash credit limit of Rs. 15 lakhs availed by the petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 committed default in repayment of the amount to the bank which led the bank to declare the said amount as non-performing assets. On March 27, 2007, the bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and subsequently took a symbolic possession of the said property under Section 13 (4) of the said Act. The Bank proceeded to sale the said property kept as a co-lateral security and fixed the sale to be conducted on 21st October, 2008. The opposite party nos. 3 to 5 were declared as a highest bidder and the sale certificate was issued. The said Ramji Shaw through his Advocate caused a letter dated October 29, 2008 intimating that one of his relative has agreed to buy the said property at Rs. 30 lakh and further forwarded a demand draft of Rs. 3 lakh with an undertaking to pay the balance sum. Subsequently another demand draft of Rs. 4.5 lakh was forwarded to the bank with further undertaking that the balance of sum of Rs. 22.5 lakh would be paid within 15 days. The bank returned the aforesaid drafts as the sale certificate has already been issued in favour of the highest bidder i.e. opposite party nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) On November 7, 2008, the said Ramji Shaw, since deceased, filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata which was registered as S.A/218/2008 alleging that the property have been sold at much lower price. The Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected the said application on October 5, 2011 by directing the opposite party nos.3 to 5 to deposit a further sum of Rs. 4,99,449/- so as to make the total sale price at Rs. 30 lakh. The said order is assailed by the petitioners before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in S.A. No. 218 of 2008. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the tribunal should have cancelled the sale certificate, the moment it is found the offer, is inadequate and not matching the market price. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in case of Maganlal vs- M/s Jaiswal Industries, Neemach & Ors., 1989 AIR(SC) 2113, Divya Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs- Union Bank of India & Ors., Official Liquidator & Ors., 2000 6 SCC 69 and Ram Kishun & Ors vs- State of U.P. & Ors, 2012 AIR(SC) 2288.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party nos. 3 to 5 counterd the submissions of the petitioner by submitting that after the sale is confirmed, the right of redemption extinguishes and placed reliance upon a division bench judgment of Madhyapradesh High Court in case of Saroj Shivhare & Ors., -vs- Gaurav Enterprises & Ors., 2012 2 DRTC 47. It is further contended that upon insurance of the sale certificate, the sale is complete which is the evidence of title and placed reliance upon a judgment of Madhyapradesh High Court in case of M/s Gaurav Enterprises, Gwalior vs- State Bank of India, 2012 AIR(MP) 35.