In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Company Appeal No.1/2009 The State Bank of Indore Vs. Mr. Prashant & Ors. Date Of Order :: 15/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. G.K. Garg, for appellant. Mr. Ritesh Agarwal, for respondent.
There are two misc. applications no.13972/13-7-2010 & 13973/13-7-2010.
Initially this Court after hearing counsel for the parties by a detailed order dt.15.4.2010 modified the earlier order passed on 24.7.09 and granted permission to the appellant-bank to dispose of the secured assets which are in its possession by adopting the procedure provided under law. Against the order dt.15.4.2010, a Special Leave to Appeal was preferred by respondent but the same was dismissed vide order dt.14.5.2010. After modification vide order dt.15.4.2010, a public notice for sale of immovable properties by bid/auction in regard to properties situated at Kota and Daman were separately published and widely circulated. At this stage, another application was filed by respondent seeking certain clarifications that they had apprehensions that the appellant-bank will not follow the procedure provided under Rules,2002. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, the said application was also rejected by a detailed order on 27.5.2010.
By misc. application no.13972/13-7-2010 filed by the respondent, it has been prayed that complete records of the bid held on 4.6.2010 at Kota Branch in regard to the property situated at Kota may be summoned and the affairs of the bid held on 4.6.2010 be investigated by independent authority. At the same time, it has also been prayed that the appellant-bank should be restrained not to sell the property situated at Kota for a price lesser than Rs.7.81 crores.
Counsel for the appellant-bank has informed this Court that the process of auctioning the property situated at Kota which took place on 4.6.2010 has finally failed and the appellant-bank will issue a fresh public notice for auctioning the property situated at Kota obviously in accordance with the procedure provided under Rules,2002.
What has been prayed for in the application referred to supra is without substance. At the same time, by second misc. application no.13973/13-7-2010 has been filed in respect to the property situated at Daman, a prayer has been made that Purbanchal Cables & Condcutors (P) Ltd. Who has been alleged to be intending prospective buyer has raised certain queries which have not been meted out by the appellant-bank, hence prayer has been made that appellant-bank may be directed to clarify the queries made by alleged intending prospective buyer and only thereafter the proceedings with regard to auction of the property situated at Daman may be initiated.
It will be relevant to observe that who is claiming to be intending prospective buyer has failed to deposit the earnest money as yet in pursuance of sale notice published by the appellant-bank, which is one of the condition in the public notice to participate in the bid process, in absence whereof, the so called prospective buyer who has asked the appellant-bank to make clarification as alleged by him, reference of which has been made by the respondent while filing of second application is wholly without substance and deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, both the applications no.13972/13-7-2010 & 13973/13-7-2010 stand rejected. Office to proceed.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
VS Shekhawat/-p.3
1CoA09Jul15Misc.do