MD. SALEEM RIZVI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The short facts of the case according to the petitioners are that they are the joint owners of a multi-storied building named Dazy Commercial Complex constructed on a piece of land of Tauzi No. 641/643, New Holding No. 140/118, Street No. 69, Circle No. 20 (old) and 17A (New), Plot No. 1258, 1259 and 1260 situated at Mouza-Dariyapur Sher, Mohalla-Bari Path, P.S. Pirbahore, Town and District Patna. Three loans variously from the State Bank of India (SBI), HDFC Bank Limited (HDFC) and Punjab and Sindh Bank were taken against the property. Litigation ensued and several writ petitions were also filed before this Court. In the result, the recoverable amount from the said three banks was finally fixed in lump sum at Rs. 1,05,00,000/-, Rs. 82,00,000/- and Rs. 51,00,000/- respectively, (aggregate recoverable came to Rs. 2,38,00,000/-). By order dated 07.05.2014 passed in CWJC No. 15791 of 2012 (Md. Saleem Rizvi vs. HDFC Bank Limited) and analogous cases, this Court, inter alia, directed as follows:-

(3.) Mr. J.S. Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned auction-cum-sale notice published on 10.10.2017 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the directions of this Court passed in its order dated 07.05.2014 in CWJC No. 15791 of 2012 as aforesaid, in which clear direction had been issued for each floor of the seven storied commercial building to be separately valued and thereafter to sell only such floors of the premises part-wise or in such manner which may be found advisable, so as to leave the remaining property for the benefit of the petitioners. It had further been observed that the remaining unsold portion of the building should be handed over jointly to the petitioners. In the instant case, a mere reference to the auction- cum-sale notice dated 10.10.2017 discloses that the Committee of the respondent-lenders were seeking to sell the entire property for a consolidated reserve price of Rs. 3,61,64,263/- as a whole and not floor-wise. Moreover, on the face of it, the reserve price itself being higher than the aggregate of the dues recoverable fro m the petitioners standing at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- shows that it was not at all necessary to sell the entire property and some part of it could have been left out for the use of the petitioners. Attention has been drawn to the objections dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure-4/A) against the auction-cum-sale notice, inter alia, pointing out that the value of the building was worth several crores of rupees whereas the recoverable loan was on the lower side. In view of the specific directions of this Court in its order dated 07.05.2014 and in the subsequent orders, it was requested that the Committee act strictly in terms of the said order, violation of which would be liable for contempt. It was pointed out that the auction sale of the entire building as a whole would be an action beyond the competence and authority of the respondents.