STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GNJ IMPEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application has been filed by the appellant for permitting it to open the bids received qua the property in question and to proceed further to sell the property as per the rules. No reply to that application has been filed by the respondent despite sufficient time was allowed to it. The facts giving rise to this application, in brief, are that after the appellant Bank came in possession of the mortgaged property, it proceeded to sell it and published notice dated 9.4.2012 for sale inviting bids. The borrower/respondent filed I.A. No. 327/2012 in his S.A. No. 18/2011 before the DRT for directing the Bank to delete Clauses 9, 12 and 13 of the sale notice and also for fixing the reserve price of the property at Rs. 10 crores instead of Rs. 6.47 crores, as mentioned in the notice. The DRT did not accept the plea of fixing the reserve price at Rs. 10 crores, but vide order dated 21.5.2012, observed that since Clauses 9, 12 and 13 have been challenged as arbitrary in nature, the sale proceedings shall continue but the confirmation of sale shall be subjected to further direction of the Tribunal. As no bid was received, the auction scheduled for 21.5.2012 accordingly failed. Thereafter, the property was again put to sale vide notice dated 6.8.2012, containing the same terms and conditions, including similar Clauses 9, 12 and 13, which had again been challenged by the respondent through I.A. No. 739/2012 and the learned DRT, vide impugned order dated 7.9.2012, quashed the said notice dated 6.8.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank filed this appeal. While admitting the appeal, this Tribunal allowed the appellant -Bank to receive the bids as per sale notice dated 6.8.2012 but restrained it from opening it until the next date. The hearing of the matter has, however, been proponed on the application of the appellant -Bank.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S.L. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, the learned Counsel for the respondent. The dispute between the parties is in respect of Clauses 9, 12 and 13 of the sale notice, which read as under:

(3.) MR . Bhandari has submitted that since the borrower/respondent had no sufficient means to pay the dues of the appellant -Bank, it had given the possession of the secured asset to the Bank for sale and the respondent does not want to cause any hindrance in its sale but the appellant -Bank must act in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules made thereunder. He also submits that Clauses 9, 12 and 13 of the sale notice are not in accordance with the Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.