MAJESTIC HOTELS LIMITED Vs. IFCI LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to a public notice dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.1 IFCI Ltd., a financial institution, as defined under Section 2(m) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), invited bids for sale/assignment of debts/secured assets of the petitioner-company at a reserve price of Rs.37.69 crores as against the reserve price of Rs.110 crores fixed in e-auction notice dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure P-37) for sale of the mortgaged property.

(2.) It is pleaded that the implementation of the Hotel Project was delayed, therefore, vide letter dated 12.04.1999, respondent No.1 rescheduled the loans and also granted various concessions by waiving of compound interest and by extending the repayment period. The loan was again restructured on 03.01.2003 while reducing the rate of interest and rescheduling the repayment. The loan was again restructured vide letter dated 31.03.2005. In the year 2007, the petitioner-company decided to renovate the hotel and to meet the cost of renovation, a term loan of Rs.5.22 crores was obtained from respondent No.3 Punjab National Bank. In April, 2008 and May, 2010, credit facilities of Rs.4.50 crores and Rs.5 crores were obtained from IDBI Bank Limited and Reliance Capital Ltd. respectively. Still further, another credit facility of Rs.2.25 crores was obtained from Axis Bank Ltd. on 26.04.2011. It was vide letter dated 01.07.2011, Punjab & Sind Bank taken over loan from M/s Reliance Capital Limited after sanctioning the loan of Rs.12 crores.

(3.) However, respondent No.3 Punjab National Bank challenged the said sale notice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing a Securitization Application bearing No.363 of 2014 on 25.07.2014. In the said application, as per the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has not filed a detailed reply explaining highly and illegal exaggerated amount. Even though the matter was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, but respondent No.1 again issued sale notice dated 12.12.2014 and also included the amount of respondent No.3 Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs.4.23 crores. The petitioner challenged such action by way of a writ petition i.e. CWP No.222 of 2015, which was dismissed on 08.01.2015 leaving the petitionercompany to avail the alternative remedy i.e. proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of Punjab National Bank. Thereafter, the petitioner-company filed an application i.e. SA No.118 of 2015 under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. When the matter was pending and no interim relief was granted, respondent No.1 issued another sale notice dated 10.04.2015. The said application was withdrawn after a fresh sale notice dated 25.06.2015 was published.