YASHWANT SINGH Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Awasthi points out that he is representing the respondent Bank before the DRT and is filing his memo of appearance today. Mr. Bajaj points out that respondent No. 3 was impleaded in the S.A. subsequently as he was having some dispute with the appellants qua the first floor of the property in question but he is not a necessary party for the purposes of this appeal and notice to him be dispensed with, which is allowed.

(2.) HEARD parties' Counsel on appeal. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.1.2013 of DRT -I, Delhi passed on I.A. No. 47/2013 filed by the applicant in S.A. No. 25/2010 whereby the interim reliefs sought have been declined and the Bank has been given the liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

(3.) MR . Bajaj also contends that the appellants have challenged in the S.A. the reserve price fixed by the Bank as well as the correctness of the valuation report obtained by the Bank as the valuation report obtained by them from a Government approved valuer shows that there is a huge variation in the valuation of each floor of the property in both the reports. He points out that in an appeal filed by the Bank against the order of the DRT, this Tribunal, had observed that instead of proceeding to sell the entire secured asset, the Bank should sell such specific portion or storey of the secured asset, which could suffice to realise the outstanding amount of debt and the Bank was directed to obtain separate valuation report for each storey of the property before proceeding to sell the secured asset. He further submits that as per Bank's valuation report, the ground floor of the building has two independent dwelling units and as per Bank's claim, the outstanding dues as on date is about Rs. 4.34 crores and since according to the Bank's valuation report, the total valuation of the ground floor is about Rs. 12 crores, therefore, instead of proceedings against the entire ground floor, the Bank should have proceed against one dwelling unit of the ground floor to realise its outstanding amount. He, however, suggests that from July, 2012 to January, 2013 seven instalments have become due and since the appellants are ready to deposit Rs. 70 lacs within three working days, the respondent Bank be directed to proceed only against one dwelling unit of the ground floor and confirmation of the sale of the entire ground floor be kept on hold and in the meantime the DRT be directed to dispose of the S.A. within a reasonable time.