PNP 1 WP6465-24.11.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6465 OF 2010
Asha Mehta and another ..Petitioners.
versus
Allahabad Bank and Ors. ..Respondents.
...
Mr. V.R. Dhond with Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. T.N. Tripathi and
Ms. Sapna Rachure i/b T.N. Tripathi & Co. for the Petitioners.
Mr. Naresh S. Fadia for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Harihar Bhave i/b Bhave & Co. for Respondent No.7
Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mr. Devanshu P. Desai, Mr. Nivit Dhruva, Mr.
Prakash Shinde, Mr. Avinath S. Gautama and Mr. G.K. Tripathi i/b Mr.
Anoopkumar Sharma for Respondent No.10.
Mr. Purav Damania for Respondent No.11.
Mr. Prakash Mehta - Director of M/s. Bulls Ventura Pvt. Ltd. and
Mr.Uttam Bagadi - Bidders present in person.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ.
24 November 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) :
1. Rule. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service.
On the request of the Learned Counsel and with their consent, the
Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 2 WP6465-24.11.sxw
2. The challenge in these proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution is to an order dated 2 August 2010 of the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal. The Recovery Officer by an order dated 20
November 2009 dismissed an application filed by the Petitioners
objecting to the confirmation of a sale. The order of the Recovery
Officer was upheld by the Tribunal and in appeal by the Appellate
Tribunal.
3. The First Respondent, Allahabad Bank filed Original Application
183 of 2004 against the Petitioners for the recovery of its dues. The
Application was allowed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 1
September 2005 in the amount of Rs.33.51 Crores together with future
interest at 12% per annum. On 17 October 2005 a recovery certificate
was issued in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal. On 17
December 2007 the Recovery Officer issued an order of attachment
of three properties, among them being Flat 603 situated in a building
known as Ruby Apartments at Walkeshwar, Mumbai. The attachment
was levied in recovery proceedings 248 of 2005 which was in
execution of the order of the Tribunal in O.A. 183 of 2004. On 9
April 2009 the First Respondent filed an affidavit before the Recovery
Officer stating that another flat being Flat No.402 together with two
appurtenant garages situated in a building known as Pleasant Park at
Peddar Road, Mumbai had been mortgaged in its favour.
4. The terms and conditions of sale were settled in pursuance of
the provisions of Rules 52 and 53 of the Second Schedule to the
Income Tax Act 1961 which is made applicable by virtue of the
provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 3 WP6465-24.11.sxw
Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. The terms of sale provided
that the three properties were being sold on an ‘as is where is and
what is’ basis. Two of those properties which form the subject
matter of these proceedings are : (i) Flat No.402, Pleasant Park Co-
operative Housing Society Limited, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 006
with a carpet area of 1540 sq. ft. together with garage Nos. 17 and 18
each admeasuring 165.75 sq. ft; and (ii) Flat No.603 in Ruby
Apartments at Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai 400 006 with a carpet area
of 450 sq ft. Under the column entitled “Details of encumbrances to
which the property is liable” the disclosure that was made was “not
known”. The First Respondent did not disclose details of
encumbrances of which it had knowledge. The First Respondent was
part of a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. The
State Bank of India had in turn moved an application before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal in which on 20 March 2007 a final order had
been passed decreeing the claim and in pursuance of which a
recovery certificate was issued on 20 April 2007. The recovery
certificate in favour of the State Bank of India was in the total
amount of Rs.35.68 Crores with interest @ 12% per annum. The
recovery certificate stated that the outstandings were secured by a
mortgage of several properties in which the First Respondent and
Bank of Baroda had a pari pasu charge. Among the properties
secured by the mortgage are the two properties which have been
adverted to earlier. The statement that the details of encumbrances
were not known was untrue to the knowledge of the First
Respondent, for the First Respondent had knowledge of the charge in
favour of State Bank, with whom it ranked pari pasu.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 4 WP6465-24.11.sxw
5. Following the attachment of the property and the finalization of
the terms and conditions of sale, the aforesaid properties were listed
for public auction on 25 September 2009. The sale was advertised in
the Times of India, the Economic Times and Navshakti. The
reserved price of the property in Pleasant Park at Peddar Road was
fixed at Rs.4.25 Crores. A challenge by the Petitioners to the
valuation was rejected. Eight bids were received in respect of the
property. Of them three bidders agreed to revise their bids and the
highest bid was that of the Tenth Respondent in the amount of Rs.
4.52 Crores. In respect of the residential flat in Ruby Apartments four
bids were received. The reserved price was Rs.1.50 Crores. The
highest bid was of the Eleventh Respondent in the amount of Rs.
1,50,11,111/-. These two bids of the highest bidders were accepted.
6. On 17 November 2009 the Petitioners filed their objection to the
confirmation of the sale on the ground that – (i) the properties in
question had not been mortgaged in favour of the First Respondent;
(ii) The sale consideration was under valued; (iii) The material
particulars relating to the property had not been disclosed and (iv) A
cartel had been formed by the bidders. The Recovery Officer
declined to accept the objections by an order dated 20 November
2009. The order of the Recovery Officer was challenged in appeal
but both the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in appeal the Appellate
Tribunal declined to intervene. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have moved
these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. On behalf of the Petitioners it has been submitted that –
(i) Though the First Respondent was aware, when it finalized the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 5 WP6465-24.11.sxw
terms and conditions of sale of the pre existing encumbrances
on the property, including the charge held by the State Bank of
India, these encumbrances were not disclosed. The terms of
sale, as a matter of fact, did not even disclose that the First
Respondent itself held a pari pasu charge together with the
State Bank of India which was the lead bank in the consortium;
(ii) The properties were put up for sale on an as is where is basis
which meant that every bidder was on notice of the fact that
an investigation into the title of the two flats would have to be
made by the bidder himself and that the First Respondent
made no representation or warranty in that behalf. Any
intending bidder would upon a scrutiny of the records of the
Debts Recovery Tribunal have knowledge of the fact that the
State Bank of India had a pre existing charge on the properties
consequent upon a mortgage executed by the defaulting
borrowers;
(iii)The recovery certificate in favour of the State Bank of India
was for an amount in excess of Rs.35 Crores and the factum of
the pre existing charge in favour of the State Bank of India
was an important circumstance which would weigh in the
making of a bid for the purchase of the property;
(iv)At no stage, during the course of the auction process was it
disclosed to the intending bidders that the State Bank of India
had agreed to participate in the auction process;
(v) The fact that State Bank of India had granted its consent was
never made known to the intending bidders and as a matter of
fact, there is nothing on the record to disclose that such a
consent was in fact granted. It was only in the course of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 6 WP6465-24.11.sxw
proceedings before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal that
the State Bank filed an affidavit stating that it had participated
in the recovery proceedings for the recovery of its own dues
after the attachment warrants were issued;
(vi)The fact that the State Bank was also participating in the
auction process for the realization of its own dues in pursuance
of the recovery certificates independently obtained in O.A. 240
of 2004 was an important circumstance which would have a
bearing on the price which would be realized at an auction
sale. This not having been disclosed, there has been a material
irregularity in the conduct of the auction sale;
(vii)The Petitioners have sustained a substantial injury as a result
of the irregularity in the conduct of the auction sale.
8. The Petitioners have before the Court two bidders each of
whom is ready and willing to submit a bid in the amount not less
than Rs.6.25 Crores. The bidders have brought with them demand
drafts each of Rs.50 lacs and Rs.55 lacs and are willing to make a
with prejudice offer that in the event that the auction sale is set
aside and the property is directed to be readvertised, they will offer
atleast a minimum price of Rs.6.25 Crores for the property failing
which the earnest money which is offered by them may be forfeited.
9. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the auction
purchasers that –
(i) The State Bank of India was impleaded as the Thirteenth
Respondent to the application filed by the First Respondent;
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 7 WP6465-24.11.sxw
(ii) Several properties have been sold earlier in realization of the
recovery certificate and there was an agreement between theState Bank of India and Allahabad Bank that all the sale
proceeds will be shared pari pasu;
(iii)In pursuance of the recovery certificate that was issued in
favour of the First Respondent a notice was issued on 11February 2009 under Rules 52 and 53 for settling the terms and
conditions of sale. The Petitioners were given notice, but did
not file any objection;
(iv)A valuation report was obtained on 22 April 2009 in which the
property at Pleasant Park was valued at Rs.4.26 Crores in
ambient conditions and Rs.3.83 Crores as distress value. Achallenge by the Petitioners to the valuation was rejected;
(v) The bids were opened and accepted on 25 September 2009 and
the Petitioners had only on 17 November 2009 objected to theconfirmation on the ground that the properties in question had
not been mortgaged; that the properties were being sold at an
under value; that material particulars were not disclosed andthat a cartel had been formed.
(vi)The Recovery Officer dismissed the objections on 20 November
2009 and his orders were confirmed by the Debts RecoveryTribunal and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Petitioners
had no offers either before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the
Appellate Tribunal and it is only at this stage that offers have
been forthcoming. In the meantime, the auction purchasers
have made a substantial investment in terms of the payment of
the consideration for the purchase of the property.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 8 WP6465-24.11.sxw
10. During the course of hearing of these proceedings, the
opposition to the Petition has emanated from the auction purchasers.
Though the banks had filed replies in the proceedings, there has been
no opposition of any merit during the course of the hearing.
The rival submissions would now fall for determination.
11. The facts as they emerge on the record before the Court
indicate that the State Bank of India as a lead banker of a
consortium of banks had initiated recovery proceedings before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal. In those proceedings an order was passed
on 20 March 2007 by which the claim of the State Bank was decreed
in the amount of Rs.35.68 Crores together with interest. The two
residential properties at Pleasant Park and Ruby Apartments were
declared to be mortgaged and in which the First Respondent,
Allahabad Bank and the Seventh Respondent State Bank were held to
have a pari pasu charge together with Bank of Baroda and the
Canara Bank. The First Respondent had in turn initiated proceedings
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the realization of its dues. In
that proceeding, the claim of the First Respondent had been decreed
in the amount of Rs.33.51 Crores, by an order of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal dated 1 September 2005. In execution of the recovery
certificate a warrant of attachment was issued. The terms and
conditions of sale were finalized and notified on 20 August 2009.
This was after the recovery certificate had been issued in the other
proceeding. State Bank’s claim had been decreed for Rs.35.68 Crores
with interest. Obviously while finalizing the terms and conditions of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 9 WP6465-24.11.sxw
sale, the First Respondent was aware of the circumstance that the
two properties in question were secured by a mortgage in which the
First Respondent together with the State Bank of India held a pari
pasu charge. Neither this fact nor the fact that a recovery certificate
had been issued on 20 April 2007 was disclosed. The terms of sale
stated that the encumbrances to which the properties were liable
were not known. The consequence of this would be that every
intending bidder would be left to investigate the existing
encumbrances if any and the qualitative nature of the title that
would be passed on as a result of the auction sale. The duty to
make an enquiry and to investigate into title was therefore cast upon
each auction bidder. The Tenth Respondent has disclosed in his
affidavit dated 10 December 2009 that while bidding in respect of the
property at Pleasant Park, he had taken a search of the entire
proceedings of the present matter viz. that arising from O.A. 183 of
2004 filed by Allahabad Bank but also of O.A. 240 of 2004 which had
been instituted by the State Bank. Clearly this is indicative of the
fact that an intending bidder, upon an inspection of the records
would be made aware of the circumstance that in the proceedings
initiated by Allahabad Bank and by the State Bank recovery
certificates had been issued and that both the sets of banks were
held to have a pari pasu charge in O.A. 240 of 2004. Whether the
State Bank of India had consented to the sale of the properties
despite the existence of its own mortgage was a circumstance which
was not disclosed either in the terms of sale or at any stage during
the course of the sale. During the course of these proceedings we
had specifically enquired with counsel appearing on behalf of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 10 WP6465-24.11.sxw
State Bank as to whether the State Bank had consented to the sale
of the properties to which the learned counsel stated that there was
no such record in the proceedings before the Court nor does he
proceed on the basis that there was consent.
12. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners relied upon the
provisions of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 73
enunciates that where assets are held by a Court and more persons
than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to
the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money
passed against the same judgment debtor and have not obtained
satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization,
shall be rateably distributed among all such persons. Proviso (b),
however, stipulates that where any property liable to be sold in
execution of a decree is subject to a mortgage or charge, the Court
may, with the consent of the mortgagee or encumbrancer, order
that the property be sold free from mortgage or charge, giving to
the mortgagee or encumbrancer the same interest in the proceeds of
the sale as he had in the property sold. However, it may be stated
here that Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act 1993 provides that the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted to any proceedings before
the Tribunal.
13. Counsel appearing on behalf of the auction purchaser has fairly
submitted before the Court that it is not the case of the auction
purchaser that the State Bank had consented to the sale. As a
matter of fact, the record before the Court contains an affidavit filed
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 11 WP6465-24.11.sxw
by the State Bank before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In
its affidavit the State Bank discloses as follows :
“I say that once the Attachment Warrants are issued under the
Recovery Proceeding initiated by the Respondent No.1, the
Respondent No.7 has participated in the said Recovery
Proceedings for its recovery as per the due process of
law.” (emphasis supplied)“I say that the Respondent No.7 has filed the Original
Application before the MDRT-II, being the Original ApplicationNo.240 of 2004, wherein all the consortium Documents together
with the Security Documents were filed and it is adjudicated
claim against the Appellants herein and in favour of the
Respondent Nos.1, 7 and 8. It is very clearly stated therein thatthe Respondent Nos.1, 7 and 8 are having pari passu charge
over and in respect of the said Mortgage Properties.”
14. The Court is essentially concerned with the question as to
whether the sale that was conducted was fair and transparent and in
accordance with law. The State Bank made a disclosure for the first
time before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in its affidavit that
was filed that once an attachment warrant was issued under the
recovery proceedings initiated by the First Respondent it had
participated in the recovery proceedings. The fact that the State Bank
of India was consenting to the sale of the property was certainly not
a fact which was disclosed to the intending bidders. If there was
such an agreement, and consent was communicated by the State
Bank to Allahabad Bank, this could not have been a matter of
private understanding between the banks, but ought to have been
placed squarely in the public domain since it was a circumstance
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 12 WP6465-24.11.sxw
which would materially and significantly affect the price which would
be offered by a prospective bidder for the purchase of the property
in the auction sale. If the sale was subject to the rights which State
Bank had arising out of the charge in its favour, this would materially
affect the valuation which a bidder would place on the property. On
the other hand if State Bank was participating in the sale, that had a
material bearing on the price which would be realized at the auction
sale. Silence was all that the First Respondent had to offer, much in
line with its own ambivalence in suppressing even the details of the
encumbrances on the property of which it had knowledge. During
the course of the hearing, Counsel for the Bank had no explanation
or submission to offer on this aspect.
15. The contention which has been urged on behalf of the auction
purchaser is that certain properties had been sold earlier in which,
both the State Bank as well as Allahabad Bank had participated. A
reference to this is to be found in paragraph 9 of the order passed
by the Recovery Officer. The order of the Recovery Officer notes that
one of the properties at Prasad Chambers was sold by the
Defendants, meaning thereby the defaulting borrowers during the
course of the one time settlement (OTS) and the permission of the
State Bank of India being the lead bank was taken for lifting the
attachment. This was therefore a situation where the defaulting
borrower had sought and obtained the permission of the State Bank
for lifting the attachment. The Recovery Officer has adverted to the
sale of a second property at Majestic Shopping Center, Girgaum which
was sold in public auction by the Tribunal and the sale proceeds
were shared by the consortium of banks. This circumstance by itself
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 13 WP6465-24.11.sxw
is not indicative of the fact that the State Bank had consented to the
sale of the two properties in question. Any such consent could not
have been a matter of an undisclosed understanding. The factum of
consent if any had a material bearing on the conduct of the auction
sale and the price that would be realized during the course of the
sale. The failure to disclose this material circumstance would in our
view vitiate the sale. Counsel for the auction purchaser submits that
the auction purchaser had engaged a team of lawyers who found out
the state of affairs. The nub of the issue is that the auction
purchaser had knowledge of a state of affairs which was not made
known to intending bidders. Private understandings, and selective
access to information are an anathema to any process which is
founded on the rule of law. Allowed to persist, such a state of affairs
will be destructive of public confidence. At issue is not only the
expectation of the defaulting borrower that his property can be put
to sale by a transparent process which follows objective crieteria.
Equally at issue is the public interest in ensuring that financial
institutions realize the best possible price at auction sales for the
recovery of dues. A lack of fair disclosure and ambivalence of the
kind involved in this case affects the interest of the financial
institutions as well. That is why there has been virtually no contest
on the part of the Allahabad Bank and the State Bank in the oral
submissions at the hearing.
16. Rules 60, 61 and 62 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax
Act lay down the procedure to be followed on an application to set
aside a sale. In the present case, it was sought to be urged by the
auction purchaser that the Petitioners had not within a period of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 14 WP6465-24.11.sxw
thirty days from the date of the sale applied to the tax Recovery
Officer to set aside the sale. The application made by the Petitioners
was on 17 November 2009 when the proceedings came up for
confirmation of sale before the Recovery Officer. The important
circumstance to be noted in this case, however, is that the disclosure
by the State Bank of India that it had participated in the auction sale
was made for the first time in the affidavit which was filed before
the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It was only at that stage that
the State Bank of India disclosed before the Court that it had indeed
agreed to participate in the sale process. The material irregularity in
the sale process emanates precisely as a result of the failure to
disclose this circumstance during the course of the auction sale. For
the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the intervention by
this Court in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is warranted.
17. During the course of the hearing, counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioners has stated before the Court that the Petitioners
have before the Court two bidders each of whom is willing to submit
a minimum bid of Rs.6.25 Crores. Two demand drafts in the total
amount of Rs.55 lacs have been furnished by M/s. Bulls Ventura
Private Limited and a demand draft in the amount of Rs.50 lacs has
been submitted by Mr. Uttam Bagadi. The first of the bidders is
represented by an authorized person while the second is personally
present before the Court. The first of the bidders is represented by
Mr. Prakash Mehta, a director of the company. Both the bidders have
made it clear before the Court that they are ready and willing to bid
atleast for an amount of Rs.6.25 Crores in a fresh bidding process and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 15 WP6465-24.11.sxw
that in the event that they fail to do so, the amount which has been
furnished by them in the form of demand drafts may be forfeited.
18. In a matter such as the present, the duty of the Court is
explained in a review of the law by the Supreme Court in Divya
Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India1. The case
before the Supreme Court arose in the context of the Companies
(Court) Rules, 1959, but the principles which have been formulated
have general application. The Supreme Court adverted to the
judgment in Navalkha and Sons v. Ramanya Das2 where it was held
that it is not only proper but necessary that the Court in exercising
the discretion which it undoubtedly has of accepting or refusing the
highest bid, should see that the price fetched at the auction is an
adequate price even in a case where there is no suggestion of
irregularity or fraud. Similarly, in Lica (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator3
the Supreme Court held thus :
“The purpose of an open auction is to get the most
remunerative price and it is the duty of the court to keep
openness of the auction so that the intending bidders would befree to participate and offer higher value. If that path is cut
down or closed the possibility of fraud or to secure inadequate
price or underbidding would loom large. The court would,
therefore, have to exercise its discretion wisely and with
circumspection and keeping in view the facts and circumstancesin each case.”
19. These principles have been followed by the Supreme Court in
Divya Manufacturing Company (supra). Undoubtedly one of the
parties which has now come before the Court to offer an enhanced
1 (2000) 6 SCC 69.
2 (1969) 3 SCC 537.
3 (2000) 6 SCC 82.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 16 WP6465-24.11.sxw
bid was a bidder at the earlier occasion. The second party was not a
bidder at the earlier occasion. The circumstance which has weighed
with the Court is that the auction process was lacking in
transparency. The parties which have been declared as the successful
bidders were privy to information which was not part of the public
realm. The fact that State Bank of India was participating in the
auction process was never disclosed during the course of the bidding
process until as already noted earlier, an affidavit was filed before the
Appellate Tribunal. There is, therefore, a clear lack of transparency in
the auction process.
20. In a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Valji Khimji
and Company v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product
(Gujarat) Ltd.4, the Supreme Court has noted that auction sales are
of two types – (i) where the auction is not subject to subsequent
confirmation; and (ii) where the auction is subject to subsequent
confirmation by some authority after the action is held. In the first
class of cases the auction is complete on the fall of the hammer, and
certain rights accrue in favour of the auction purchaser. However,
where the auction is subject to subsequent confirmation by some
authority under a statute or terms of the auction, the auction is not
complete and no rights accrue until the sale is confirmed. Once the
sale is confirmed by the authority, the rights which accrue cannot be
extinguished except in exceptional cases such as fraud. These
observations of the Supreme Court establish that in a situation where
an auction sale is subject to confirmation, the rights that have
emanated from the auction sale and confirmation ought not to be
4 (2008) 9 SCC 299.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 17 WP6465-24.11.sxw
ordinarily extinguished save in an exceptional situation and fraud is
one of such cases. Fraud is therefore not exhaustive of the
category of exceptional cases. Where the auction sale that has been
conducted is found lacking transparency, by a failure to disclose
material particulars and which has a material bearing on the price
which will be offered by an intending bidder, an exceptional case is
held to be made out within the dictum of the judgment of the
Supreme Court.
21. It was urged on behalf of the auction purchasers that neither
the State Bank of India nor the defaulting borrowers had raised any
objections to the terms and conditions of sale. Now Rule 53 requires
that the proclamation of sale of immovable property shall be drawn
up after notice to the defaulters and shall state the time and place
and shall specify as clearly and accurately as possible (i) the property
to be sold; (ii) the revenue if any assessed upon the property; (iii) the
amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered; (iv) the
reserved price below which the property may not be sold and (v) any
other information which the Tax Recovery Officer considers material
for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of
the property. Rule 53 as a matter of fact does not contemplate the
issuance of a notice to a party other than the defaulter. Moreover, it
was the bounden obligation of the Tax Recovery Officer to disclose
any other information which he considers material for a purchaser to
know in order to judge the nature and value of the property. The
fact that the State Bank of India was to participate in the auction
sale was an important circumstance which a purchaser was entitled
to know in order to determine the true value of the property. By
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 18 WP6465-24.11.sxw
failing to disclose that information, the Recovery Officer has failed to
act in a transparent and objective manner despite the clear provisions
of Rule 53.
22. For the reasons set out earlier, the Petition is allowed in the
following terms :
i) The order dated 2 August 2010 of the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal 31 of 2010 is set aside;
ii) The auction sale that was held on 24 September 2009 and the
confirmation of the sale of 17 November 2009 are quashed and
set aside;
iii) The First Respondent shall readvertise the two properties viz.
the residential properties at 402 Pleasant Park, Peddar Road
and 503 Ruby Apartments, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai for sale.
The sale shall be conducted in accordance with law;
iv) The demand drafts which have been received in the amount of
Rs.55 lacs and Rs.50 lacs are directed to be forwarded by theRegistrar – Judicial to the Recovery Officer of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal – I. The undertaking of the two bidders that
they shall bid at the auction in an amount not less than Rs.6.25Crores for the residential flat at 402 Pleasant Park, Peddar Road,
Mumbai is accepted. In the event that the aforesaid two
bidders commit any breach of the statement made before the
Court, the earnest money furnished as aforesaid shall stand
forfeited;
v) The amount which has been paid by the successful bidders
shall be returned to them by the First Respondent with the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::
PNP 19 WP6465-24.11.sxw
accretions of interest, if any thereon;
Rule is made absolute in these terms. There shall be no order as to
costs.
23. On the request of counsel appearing for the auction purchasers,
there shall be a stay of the operation of this judgment and order for
a period of six weeks from today, to enable the auction purchasers to
have recourse to their remedies..
The ad interim order dated 16 August 2010 shall, however,
continue to remain in operation during the period mentioned earlier.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:38:24 :::