A submission had been made on behalf of the
Appellant that the second application filed under Section 17
of the Act was not maintainable and therefore, it ought not
to have been entertained by the Tribunal. We are not in
agreement with the said submission for the reason that
when another application was filed under Section 17(1) of
the Act, the cause of action was different. At an earlier
point of time, the issuance of notice as well as notice for sale
of the flat had been challenged, whereas the subsequent
application had been filed after the auction had been held.
The cause of action in respect of both the applications was
not same and therefore, in our opinion, the second
application for a different cause of action was maintainable.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10676-10677 OF 2016
(@ SLP (C) No. 32638-32639 of 2011)
M/s Oasis Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
VERSUS
Khazana Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation:(2016) 10 SCC214
Dated:NOVEMBER 8, 2016.
2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment
dated 24.08.2011 rendered by the High Court of Calcutta,
whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition
filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and affirmed the order of the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under :
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the principal
shareholders, directors and persons in charge of
Respondent No.1 Company. Respondent No. 4 (ING Vysya
Bank) had granted financial assistance to Respondent nos.1
to 3 by way of “Cash Credit facility”. In consideration of the
aforesaid loan, Respondent nos.1 to 3 had furnished
security in terms of (a) Hypothecation of Book Debts, (b)
Equitable mortgage of residential flat bearing no. 1-C at
7/1, Queens Park, Kolkata-700019 and (c) pledge of LIC
Policy for an assured sum of Rs.8 lakh in name of
Respondent No.3.
4. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 defaulted in the repayment of
the loan and thus, the account was classified as
“Non-performing Asset” with effect from 1.12.2008 in
accordance with the directions of Reserve Bank of India. As
on 31st December, 2008, a sum of Rs.37,01,758.49 (Rupees
Thirty seven lakh one thousand seven hundred fifty eight
and forty nine paise), along with applicable interest @ 15%
per annum and penal interest was outstanding against the
said Respondents. Page 3
3
5. Accordingly, a notice dated 17th January, 2009 under
Section 13 (2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Rule 9
of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) was served upon
Respondent nos.1 to 3 calling upon them to pay the
aforementioned sum along with future interest within 60
days from the date of the said notice and they were also
instructed not to create any third party interest in the
secured assets by way of sale, lease or otherwise. The
aforesaid notice was duly replied to by Respondent No.1
Company vide letter dated 14th March, 2009 by disputing
the amount and requesting Respondent no. 4 bank to give
certain credits. Respondent no.4 gave a reply vide its letter
dated 20th March, 2009 to letter dated 14th March, 2009
by asserting that notice dated 17th January, 2009 had been
correctly issued as per the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the
Act.
6. It is apposite to state that Respondent No. 4 bank vide
possession notice dated 10th August, 2009 took “symbolicPage 4
4
possession” of the property in question i.e. Residential Flat
No. bearing 1C (1st Floor) situated at premises no. 7/1,
Queens Park, Kolkata-700019 (hereinafter referred to as
“the flat”) which was in the names of Respondent nos. 2 and
3.
7. Being aggrieved by said notice dated 10th August,
2009, Respondent nos. 1 and 3 preferred application
no.92/2009 under Section 17 of Act, 2002 on 15th
September, 2009 against Respondent no.4 bank by stating
that the act of taking symbolic possession of the flat in
question was illegal, without jurisdiction and was in
violation of the Act and Regulations made thereunder,
primarily for the reason that no advertisement was
published in the newspaper in terms of Rule 8 (2) of the
Rules and no possession notice under Rule 8 (1) was affixed
on the said property and hence, prayed for quashing of
notice dated 17th January, 2009 and also for quashing all
steps taken under the Act.
8. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid application, the
learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Kolkata vide order dated
17th December, 2009 directed Respondent nos.1 and 3 toPage 5
5
pay a sum of Rs.15 lakh before 26th December, 2009 and
directed the Respondent bank to maintain status-quo and
in case the borrowers fail to deposit the said sum before the
stipulated date, Respondent no. 4 bank would be at liberty
to proceed in accordance with law.
9. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 17th December,
2009 passed by the DRT, Kolkata, Respondent nos.1 and 3
filed a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
before the High Court and the High Court vide order dated
24th December, 2009 modified the order passed by the DRT
to the extent that instead of paying a sum of Rs.15 lakh to
the bank before 26th December, 2009, bank guarantee for
Rs.10 lakh be furnished before 2nd January, 2010 and the
hearing was adjourned to 4th January, 2010.
10. On 4th January, 2010, when the matter was taken up
before the High Court, an adjournment was sought for by
the borrowers and it was submitted on behalf of the
Respondent bank that bank guarantee for Rs.10 lakh, as
ordered, had not been furnished by the borrowers.
11. In the light of the aforestated situation, Respondent
no.4 bank issued a notice dated 4th January, 2010 forPage 6
6
auctioning the flat by referring to an earlier auction notice
dated 10th November, 2009, which had been published in
newspapers “The Statesman” (English) and “Aajkal”
(Bengali). The auction was to take place on 6th January,
2010 and the reserve price of the flat was
Rs.1,48,00,000/-(Rupees one crore forty eight lakh only).
12. In terms of the aforestated notice dated 4th January,
2010, the Appellant (M/s Oasis Dealcom Pvt. Ltd) submitted
its bid to purchase the flat, who was the sole bidder.
Respondent no.4 bank, vide its letter dated 6th January,
2010 accepted the bid for a sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/- and on
the same day, confirmed the sale in terms of the provisions
of the Act. Respondent no.4 bank vide letter dated 9th
January, 2010 also issued a sale certificate in favour of the
Appellant as per Rule 9 (6) of the Rules.
13. On 11th January, 2010, when the Petition came up for
hearing before the High Court, it was noticed that the bank
guarantee had not been furnished by the borrowers in terms
of its order dated 24th December, 2009 and the Respondent
bank had sold the property in question to the Appellant
company. Page 7
7
14. When the matter was placed before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal on 7th January, 2010, the Tribunal recorded the
fact that the flat had been sold and therefore, virtually the
proceedings had become infructuous. However, the matter
was adjourned to 5th March, 2010, to enable the parties to
complete the pleadings. However, on 14th January, 2010,
the Respondent borrowers filed an application for depositing
the amount payable but on the same day, taking judicial
notice of the subsequent developments, the Tribunal
dismissed the said application as it had become
infructuous.
15. In the aforestated circumstances, the Respondent
borrowers filed another application under Section 17(1) of
the Act challenging the validity of the demand notice dated
17th January, 2009 and sale of property which had taken
place in January 2010 in pursuance of the aforestated
notice. The Tribunal ordered to maintain status-quo as on
28th January, 2010.
16. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Writ
Petition No.169 of 2010 was filed by the present Appellant
i.e. the auction purchaser, but the High Court disposed of
the Petition as the matter was pending before the Tribunal.
Ultimately, the Tribunal passed an order dated 10th June,
2010 in O.A. No.4 of 2010 setting aside the sale certificate.
However, it permitted the borrowers to make payment
within three weeks and if the amount was paid within three
weeks, the bank was directed to refund the purchase money
to the Appellant with 8% interest thereon.
17. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed
Writ Petition No.7087 of 2010 challenging the validity of the
order dated 10th June, 2010 passed by the Tribunal and the
said petition was disposed of with a liberty to the Appellant
to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
18. By an order dated 18th February, 2011, the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by
the Tribunal observing that material irregularities had been
committed in conducting the auction sale and in the
circumstances, the auction purchaser as well as the
respondent bank separately challenged the validity of the
said order dated 18th February, 2011 before the High Court
and the High Court confirmed the order passed by the DebtPage 9
9
Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 24th August,
2011.
19. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated
24th August, 2011, the present appeals have been filed by
the auction purchaser .
20. The Appellant was represented by one of its Directors,
Shri Agarwal, who appeared in person. He submitted that
the amount of purchase price had already been paid and as
the entire proceedings had been conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the High
Court committed an error by setting aside the auction sale.
He further submitted that there was neither any fraud nor
any illegality in conducting the auction of the flat. He also
submitted that necessary notice under Section 13 had
already been issued to the Respondent borrowers and as the
borrowers had failed to make payment after publication of
notice in newspapers as per the provisions of the Act as well
as the Rules, the property in question had been sold by
holding an auction. He further submitted that the price
offered by the Appellant was just and fair, though nobody
else had participated in the bid. According to him, wide
publicity had also been given to the auction. In view of the
fact that the entire amount had been paid, according to
him, the sale ought not to have been set aside. He further
submitted that sufficient opportunity had been given to the
borrowers to make the payment at an earlier point of time,
but they had failed to make payment of their dues to the
creditor bank. Moreover, according to him, the borrowers
had also failed to furnish bank guarantee, as directed
earlier and the said fact had been duly considered by the
Tribunal at an earlier point of time and as the borrowers
had failed to furnish the bank guarantee, the creditor bank
had rightly confirmed the sale in favour of the Appellant
company.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Respondent borrowers had submitted that several serious
irregularities had been committed by the bank in
conducting the auction. Requisite notice, as required as per
the Rules, had not been given and he had supported the
judgment delivered by the High Court. According to him, if
for any reason the auction sale is postponed, the entire
process for holding the auction should be started afresh and
as no fresh notice was given before conducting the auction,
the sale effected by the bank was absolutely improper as
held by the High Court. He had thus supported the reasons
assigned by the High Court for setting aside the auction
sale.
22. On behalf of the Respondent bank, the learned counsel
submitted that the bank was prepared to accept the amount
due and payable by the respondent borrower and in that
event it would return the amount received from the
Appellant along with interest thereon, as directed by the
High Court.
23. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through
the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court, we
have no doubt about the fact that undue haste was made by
the creditor bank in holding the auction. The creditor bank
could have waited for some time when the proceedings were
pending before the Tribunal as well as the High Court before
conducting the auction and confirming the sale. We do not
find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings arrived at
by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as the High
Court about the irregularities committed in holding the
auction.
24. A submission had been made on behalf of the
Appellant that the second application filed under Section 17
of the Act was not maintainable and therefore, it ought not
to have been entertained by the Tribunal. We are not in
agreement with the said submission for the reason that
when another application was filed under Section 17(1) of
the Act, the cause of action was different. At an earlier
point of time, the issuance of notice as well as notice for sale
of the flat had been challenged, whereas the subsequent
application had been filed after the auction had been held.
The cause of action in respect of both the applications was
not same and therefore, in our opinion, the second
application for a different cause of action was maintainable.
25. In the circumstances, we do not intend to disturb the
judgment delivered by the High Court. However, looking at
the nature of litigation faced by the auction purchaser, we
modify the order and direct that the amount already paid by
the auction purchaser shall be returned to the auction
purchaser with simple interest at the rate of 10% till the
said amount is paid.
26. In exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, we further direct that before 30th
November, 2016, the creditor bank shall give intimation of
the total amount payable by the borrowers ( i.e. principal
amount and interest, including penal interest, if any) as on
1
st December, 2016 and if the said amount is not paid by
the borrowers before 10th day of December, 2016, it would
be open to the creditor bank to sell the flat by holding an
auction, without giving any further notice to the borrowers
but after giving a 30 days’ public notice for the sale of the
flat in one English leading newspaper and in one local
newspaper, so as to recover its dues.
27. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforestated
modification with no order as to costs.
……………………………..J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
……………………………..J
New Delhi. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
NOVEMBER 8, 2016.
Appellant that the second application filed under Section 17
of the Act was not maintainable and therefore, it ought not
to have been entertained by the Tribunal. We are not in
agreement with the said submission for the reason that
when another application was filed under Section 17(1) of
the Act, the cause of action was different. At an earlier
point of time, the issuance of notice as well as notice for sale
of the flat had been challenged, whereas the subsequent
application had been filed after the auction had been held.
The cause of action in respect of both the applications was
not same and therefore, in our opinion, the second
application for a different cause of action was maintainable.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10676-10677 OF 2016
(@ SLP (C) No. 32638-32639 of 2011)
M/s Oasis Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
VERSUS
Khazana Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation:(2016) 10 SCC214
Dated:NOVEMBER 8, 2016.
2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment
dated 24.08.2011 rendered by the High Court of Calcutta,
whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition
filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and affirmed the order of the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under :
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the principal
shareholders, directors and persons in charge of
Respondent No.1 Company. Respondent No. 4 (ING Vysya
Bank) had granted financial assistance to Respondent nos.1
to 3 by way of “Cash Credit facility”. In consideration of the
aforesaid loan, Respondent nos.1 to 3 had furnished
security in terms of (a) Hypothecation of Book Debts, (b)
Equitable mortgage of residential flat bearing no. 1-C at
7/1, Queens Park, Kolkata-700019 and (c) pledge of LIC
Policy for an assured sum of Rs.8 lakh in name of
Respondent No.3.
4. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 defaulted in the repayment of
the loan and thus, the account was classified as
“Non-performing Asset” with effect from 1.12.2008 in
accordance with the directions of Reserve Bank of India. As
on 31st December, 2008, a sum of Rs.37,01,758.49 (Rupees
Thirty seven lakh one thousand seven hundred fifty eight
and forty nine paise), along with applicable interest @ 15%
per annum and penal interest was outstanding against the
said Respondents. Page 3
3
5. Accordingly, a notice dated 17th January, 2009 under
Section 13 (2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Rule 9
of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) was served upon
Respondent nos.1 to 3 calling upon them to pay the
aforementioned sum along with future interest within 60
days from the date of the said notice and they were also
instructed not to create any third party interest in the
secured assets by way of sale, lease or otherwise. The
aforesaid notice was duly replied to by Respondent No.1
Company vide letter dated 14th March, 2009 by disputing
the amount and requesting Respondent no. 4 bank to give
certain credits. Respondent no.4 gave a reply vide its letter
dated 20th March, 2009 to letter dated 14th March, 2009
by asserting that notice dated 17th January, 2009 had been
correctly issued as per the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the
Act.
6. It is apposite to state that Respondent No. 4 bank vide
possession notice dated 10th August, 2009 took “symbolicPage 4
4
possession” of the property in question i.e. Residential Flat
No. bearing 1C (1st Floor) situated at premises no. 7/1,
Queens Park, Kolkata-700019 (hereinafter referred to as
“the flat”) which was in the names of Respondent nos. 2 and
3.
7. Being aggrieved by said notice dated 10th August,
2009, Respondent nos. 1 and 3 preferred application
no.92/2009 under Section 17 of Act, 2002 on 15th
September, 2009 against Respondent no.4 bank by stating
that the act of taking symbolic possession of the flat in
question was illegal, without jurisdiction and was in
violation of the Act and Regulations made thereunder,
primarily for the reason that no advertisement was
published in the newspaper in terms of Rule 8 (2) of the
Rules and no possession notice under Rule 8 (1) was affixed
on the said property and hence, prayed for quashing of
notice dated 17th January, 2009 and also for quashing all
steps taken under the Act.
8. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid application, the
learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Kolkata vide order dated
17th December, 2009 directed Respondent nos.1 and 3 toPage 5
5
pay a sum of Rs.15 lakh before 26th December, 2009 and
directed the Respondent bank to maintain status-quo and
in case the borrowers fail to deposit the said sum before the
stipulated date, Respondent no. 4 bank would be at liberty
to proceed in accordance with law.
9. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 17th December,
2009 passed by the DRT, Kolkata, Respondent nos.1 and 3
filed a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
before the High Court and the High Court vide order dated
24th December, 2009 modified the order passed by the DRT
to the extent that instead of paying a sum of Rs.15 lakh to
the bank before 26th December, 2009, bank guarantee for
Rs.10 lakh be furnished before 2nd January, 2010 and the
hearing was adjourned to 4th January, 2010.
10. On 4th January, 2010, when the matter was taken up
before the High Court, an adjournment was sought for by
the borrowers and it was submitted on behalf of the
Respondent bank that bank guarantee for Rs.10 lakh, as
ordered, had not been furnished by the borrowers.
11. In the light of the aforestated situation, Respondent
no.4 bank issued a notice dated 4th January, 2010 forPage 6
6
auctioning the flat by referring to an earlier auction notice
dated 10th November, 2009, which had been published in
newspapers “The Statesman” (English) and “Aajkal”
(Bengali). The auction was to take place on 6th January,
2010 and the reserve price of the flat was
Rs.1,48,00,000/-(Rupees one crore forty eight lakh only).
12. In terms of the aforestated notice dated 4th January,
2010, the Appellant (M/s Oasis Dealcom Pvt. Ltd) submitted
its bid to purchase the flat, who was the sole bidder.
Respondent no.4 bank, vide its letter dated 6th January,
2010 accepted the bid for a sum of Rs.1,48,00,000/- and on
the same day, confirmed the sale in terms of the provisions
of the Act. Respondent no.4 bank vide letter dated 9th
January, 2010 also issued a sale certificate in favour of the
Appellant as per Rule 9 (6) of the Rules.
13. On 11th January, 2010, when the Petition came up for
hearing before the High Court, it was noticed that the bank
guarantee had not been furnished by the borrowers in terms
of its order dated 24th December, 2009 and the Respondent
bank had sold the property in question to the Appellant
company. Page 7
7
14. When the matter was placed before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal on 7th January, 2010, the Tribunal recorded the
fact that the flat had been sold and therefore, virtually the
proceedings had become infructuous. However, the matter
was adjourned to 5th March, 2010, to enable the parties to
complete the pleadings. However, on 14th January, 2010,
the Respondent borrowers filed an application for depositing
the amount payable but on the same day, taking judicial
notice of the subsequent developments, the Tribunal
dismissed the said application as it had become
infructuous.
15. In the aforestated circumstances, the Respondent
borrowers filed another application under Section 17(1) of
the Act challenging the validity of the demand notice dated
17th January, 2009 and sale of property which had taken
place in January 2010 in pursuance of the aforestated
notice. The Tribunal ordered to maintain status-quo as on
28th January, 2010.
16. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Writ
Petition No.169 of 2010 was filed by the present Appellant
i.e. the auction purchaser, but the High Court disposed of
the Petition as the matter was pending before the Tribunal.
Ultimately, the Tribunal passed an order dated 10th June,
2010 in O.A. No.4 of 2010 setting aside the sale certificate.
However, it permitted the borrowers to make payment
within three weeks and if the amount was paid within three
weeks, the bank was directed to refund the purchase money
to the Appellant with 8% interest thereon.
17. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed
Writ Petition No.7087 of 2010 challenging the validity of the
order dated 10th June, 2010 passed by the Tribunal and the
said petition was disposed of with a liberty to the Appellant
to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
18. By an order dated 18th February, 2011, the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order passed by
the Tribunal observing that material irregularities had been
committed in conducting the auction sale and in the
circumstances, the auction purchaser as well as the
respondent bank separately challenged the validity of the
said order dated 18th February, 2011 before the High Court
and the High Court confirmed the order passed by the DebtPage 9
9
Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 24th August,
2011.
19. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated
24th August, 2011, the present appeals have been filed by
the auction purchaser .
20. The Appellant was represented by one of its Directors,
Shri Agarwal, who appeared in person. He submitted that
the amount of purchase price had already been paid and as
the entire proceedings had been conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the High
Court committed an error by setting aside the auction sale.
He further submitted that there was neither any fraud nor
any illegality in conducting the auction of the flat. He also
submitted that necessary notice under Section 13 had
already been issued to the Respondent borrowers and as the
borrowers had failed to make payment after publication of
notice in newspapers as per the provisions of the Act as well
as the Rules, the property in question had been sold by
holding an auction. He further submitted that the price
offered by the Appellant was just and fair, though nobody
else had participated in the bid. According to him, wide
publicity had also been given to the auction. In view of the
fact that the entire amount had been paid, according to
him, the sale ought not to have been set aside. He further
submitted that sufficient opportunity had been given to the
borrowers to make the payment at an earlier point of time,
but they had failed to make payment of their dues to the
creditor bank. Moreover, according to him, the borrowers
had also failed to furnish bank guarantee, as directed
earlier and the said fact had been duly considered by the
Tribunal at an earlier point of time and as the borrowers
had failed to furnish the bank guarantee, the creditor bank
had rightly confirmed the sale in favour of the Appellant
company.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Respondent borrowers had submitted that several serious
irregularities had been committed by the bank in
conducting the auction. Requisite notice, as required as per
the Rules, had not been given and he had supported the
judgment delivered by the High Court. According to him, if
for any reason the auction sale is postponed, the entire
process for holding the auction should be started afresh and
as no fresh notice was given before conducting the auction,
the sale effected by the bank was absolutely improper as
held by the High Court. He had thus supported the reasons
assigned by the High Court for setting aside the auction
sale.
22. On behalf of the Respondent bank, the learned counsel
submitted that the bank was prepared to accept the amount
due and payable by the respondent borrower and in that
event it would return the amount received from the
Appellant along with interest thereon, as directed by the
High Court.
23. Upon hearing the learned counsel and going through
the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court, we
have no doubt about the fact that undue haste was made by
the creditor bank in holding the auction. The creditor bank
could have waited for some time when the proceedings were
pending before the Tribunal as well as the High Court before
conducting the auction and confirming the sale. We do not
find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings arrived at
by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as the High
Court about the irregularities committed in holding the
auction.
24. A submission had been made on behalf of the
Appellant that the second application filed under Section 17
of the Act was not maintainable and therefore, it ought not
to have been entertained by the Tribunal. We are not in
agreement with the said submission for the reason that
when another application was filed under Section 17(1) of
the Act, the cause of action was different. At an earlier
point of time, the issuance of notice as well as notice for sale
of the flat had been challenged, whereas the subsequent
application had been filed after the auction had been held.
The cause of action in respect of both the applications was
not same and therefore, in our opinion, the second
application for a different cause of action was maintainable.
25. In the circumstances, we do not intend to disturb the
judgment delivered by the High Court. However, looking at
the nature of litigation faced by the auction purchaser, we
modify the order and direct that the amount already paid by
the auction purchaser shall be returned to the auction
purchaser with simple interest at the rate of 10% till the
said amount is paid.
26. In exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, we further direct that before 30th
November, 2016, the creditor bank shall give intimation of
the total amount payable by the borrowers ( i.e. principal
amount and interest, including penal interest, if any) as on
1
st December, 2016 and if the said amount is not paid by
the borrowers before 10th day of December, 2016, it would
be open to the creditor bank to sell the flat by holding an
auction, without giving any further notice to the borrowers
but after giving a 30 days’ public notice for the sale of the
flat in one English leading newspaper and in one local
newspaper, so as to recover its dues.
27. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforestated
modification with no order as to costs.
……………………………..J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
……………………………..J
New Delhi. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
NOVEMBER 8, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment