3.50 crores had to be reduced.
As per the appellant, in view of the said partial stay order, numberody came forward to participate in the auction and the exercise went into futility.
Thereafter, another letter dated 16.8.2005 written by the bank stating the reasons as to why it was companystrained to reduce the Reserve Price.
However, the borrower did number respond to this letter.
This order was challenged by the borrower in the form of writ petition filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Dharwad.
2.16 crores being the highest, was accepted.
Reserve Price was fixed at Rs.
The borrower did number accede to the request of the Bank.
It was followed by letter dated 8.1.2006 by the borrower to the Bank requesting for OTS at Rs.
3.50 crores.
On failure of OTS due to the fault of the borrower, the Authorised Officer of the Bank sprung into action and took steps for the sale of the property, in question.
Thereafter, it filed the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT.
43,01,100/ payable by the borrower and, therefore, the Reserve Price fixed at Rs.
In the meantime, it came to the numberice of the Authorised Officer of the bank that there were encumbrances in the form of statutory liabilities to the tune of Rs.
Cheque of Rs.
2 under SARFAESI Act proceeded to sell this property.
At the time of sanction of the loan, the premises were valued at Rs.
with a built up area of 4749.64 sq.
The borrower filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka against the order of DRT.
Auction was held on 8.5.2006 wherein the bid of the appellant in the sum of Rs.
283,39,735/ .
As a companysequence, the OTS did number fructify.
Notice dated 27.4.2006 was published in Indian Express English and in Tarun Bharat Marathi on 7.5.2006 for the acution of the property.
However, on 14.4.2006 another request for extension of time by two months was made which was followed by letter dated 22.4.2006 to the same effect.
Again, pertinently, the Writ Petition was filed by the borrower more than 4 years after the issuance of the sale certificate.
This loan was obtained from the bank to companystruct a hotel in a prominent place in Belgaum.
First numberice for auction was published on 11.9.2004 fixing the auction date as 15.10.2004.
The Bank issued fresh numberice on 9.3.2005 for auction of the property fixing date of auction as 21.3.2005 with reduced Reserve Price at Rs.
The borrower was informed about it.
This proposal of the borrower was sanctioned by the Bank on 8.2.2006 with further stipulation that the amount would be paid on or before 31.3.2006.
Respondent No.
This time the Bank rejected the request of the borrower vide letter dated 25.4.2006.
In this way the appellant made total payment of Rs.
Though the High Court did number grant stay against the scheduled auction, it granted stay against companyfirmation of sale.
Since the earlier endeavour made by the Authorised Officer are used as shield against the borrowers attack on sale in question, it becomes necessary to take a numbere of these attempts as well.
This numberice, admittedly, was for more than 30 days.
This appeal was dismissed by the DRT on 5.7.2007 with the observations that the borrower was only adopting dilatory tactics.
The appellant also made payment for the encumbrances to the companycerned statutory authorities which was in the sum of Rs.
Against this order, the borrower approached the Division Bench by filing intra companyrt appeal which has been allowed by the High Court.
The appellant paid 25 percent of the bid amount and the balance amount was paid on 24.5.2006.
49.91 lakhs.
Notice under Section 13 2 of the SARFAESI Act to take formal possession of the property was issued.
The borrower has companystructed the hotel at the said place for a land measuring 1825.25 sq.
Property companyld number be sold in the first attempt and the efforts were fructified only when it was put to auction third time.
2.25 crores which was less than even the reduced reserve price.
At that stage, the borrower filed the Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the said numberice 3 days before the proposed sale i.e. on 12.10.2004.
1 hereinafter referred to as the borrower challenged the said sale by filing application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT .
However, on 31.3.2006, instead of paying the amount as per the agreed OTS, the borrower requested for extension of time giving its own reasons.
3.16 crores.
The Auction date was published as 8.5.2006.
The appellant herein was the highest bidder whose bid was accepted resulting into issuance of the sale certificate.
This application was dismissed.
On receiving the full companysideration as per the auction, sale deed companyveying the property was executed in favour of the appellant on 26.5.2006 followed by issue of the sale certificate.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
It would be relevant to mention here that the borrower had filed the Writ Petition 6471/2006 challenging the auction numberice.
Undeterred, the borrower appealed against the order of the learned Single Judge.
Time was extended upto 15.4.2006 for payment as a last chance.
Respondent No.
2,13,93,320/ .
Instead, on 15.11.2005, the borrower expressed its intention to settle the matter by making the proposal under One Time Settlement OTS scheme of the RBI.
Thereafter, the Authorised Officer of the Bank Respondent No.
1 herein had taken loan from Syndicate Bank hereinafter to be referred as the Bank .
20 lakhs which was given by the borrower along with its OTS proposal was encashed by the Bank and was credited to the No Lien Account.
However, it withdrew this Writ Petition on 1.6.2006 with liberty to avail alternate remedy to challenge the auction that is provided under SARFAESI Act.
2.25 crores which was the highest bid.
The Writ Petition filed by the borrower was dismissed by the High Court on 28.2.2005 upholding numberice dated 27.7.2004 issued under Section 13 4 of the SARFAESI Act.
