RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH its order dated 16.3.2012, the Presiding Officer, DRT -I, Delhi has permitted the respondent No. 1 bank to participate in the court auction which was to be held on the same date, i.e., 16.3.2012. While granting this permission, the Tribunal imposed a condition that no bid for less than Rs. 14.75 crore would be accepted as this was the amount accepted by the appellant in sale way of private treaty. The order dated 16.3.2012 is impugned in the present appeal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that O.A. filed by respondent bank was earlier dismissed, which was challenged by the bank before this Tribunal and the said appeal was allowed on 12.7.2010. The order passed by the Tribunal below was set aside. When this appeal was filed a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by this Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent Bank was statedly pending before Delhi High Court. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Tribunal had issued a recovery certificate on 5.8.2010 against the appellant and Certificate Debtors (COs.). The Recovery Officer (R.O.) thereafter issued sale proclamation on 14.3.2011 and the property was put to auction on 6.5.2011. Court Receiver took possession of the property, namely, property No. 6, Benarsi Dass Estate, Timarpur, Delhi on 18.4.2011. Plea is that this was done without any notice to the COs or the appellant who states to be residing at Chicago, USA.

(3.) ON the day, this appeal came up for first hearing, it was disclosed that the highest bid' of Rs. 15 crores was received, which was accepted by the RO. and the sale had been confirmed in favour of the highest bidder. The counsel for the appellant also informed the Tribunal that the auction purchaser had deposited the entire sale consideration. He, however, was not clear whether or not the sale certificate had been issued or if the possession of the property was also delivered to the auction purchaser or not. This Tribunal was of the view that under such circumstances the auction purchaser was a necessary party. Time was given to the counsel to implead the auction purchaser. This application was allowed on 11.6.2012. Notice was then issued to the bank and newly added respondent. Subsequently, it was revealed before the Tribunal that the sale was also confirmed on 2.5.2012, which fact the appellant had allegedly suppressed as the appeal came up for first hearing on 7.5.2012.