BIRANJAN PANDA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8-4-2008 by which the adjournment sought by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack (herein after called the Tribunal') has been refused, and as the counsel who appeared for advancing the petitioners' application for adjournment refused to argue the case on merit, the Original Application has been dismissed for default.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that both the petitioners had incurred a loan to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs each from the opposite parties - bank by mortgaging their immovable properties with the bank. As the instalments of the loan amount had not been paid by both the petitioners, the bank initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). After completing the proceedings the bank advertised sale notices in daily newspapers under Section 13(4) of the Act. In respect of sale of land relating to petitioner No. 1 measuring Ac.0.093 decimals the reserve price was fixed at Rs. 14.80 lakhs, while in respect of the land relating to petitioner No. 2 measuring Ac.0.080 decimals it was fixed at Rs. 12.50 lakhs. The auction was scheduled to be held on 16-4-2008 at 4.00 p.m. However, on the said date the auction could not be held. The properties were re-advertised for auction and the reserve price had been reduced to Rs. 12.50 lakhs and Rs. 12.00 lakhs respectively. The mortgaged properties were sold on 30-7-2007 for a consideration of Rs. 24.50 lakhs to opposite party Nos. 5 and 6.

(3.) Being aggrieved the petitioners approached the Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Act mainly on the ground of undervaluation of the mortgaged properties pointing out that the land worth Rs. 35 lakhs had been sold at a low price of Rs. 24.50 lakhs. The Tribunal issued notices on the said application to the respondents bank, who submitted their written statement. The matter was fixed before the Tribunal on 1-4-2008. On the said date, the petitioners' counsel filed an application for adjournment on the ground that the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was not well and in support of the said application a photo copy of the medical certificate dated 31 -3-2008 was also filed. According to the said medical certificate petitioners' Senior Counsel had been advised complete bed rest for fifteen days. The Tribunal considered the application for adjournment, and instead of adjourning the case for two weeks, on the ground that the appeal had to be disposed of within four months from the date of its filing, adjourned it to 8-4-2008. When the case came up before the Tribunal on 8-4-2008 again an application for adjournment was filed enclosing therewith a photo-copy of the same medical certificate dated 31-3-2008. The Tribunal refused to give further adjournment and the counsel, who was pressing the application for adjournment, refused to argue the matter on merit. Hence the original application has been dismissed.