In the light of the aforestated situation, Respondent number4 bank issued a numberice dated 4th January, 2010 for auctioning the flat by referring to an earlier auction numberice dated 10th November, 2009, which had been published in newspapers The Statesman English and Aajkal Bengali .
2 and 3.
bearing 1C 1st Floor situated at premises number 7/1, Queens Park, Kolkata 700019 hereinafter referred to as the flat which was in the names of Respondent number.
The aforesaid numberice was duly replied to by Respondent No.1 Company vide letter dated 14th March, 2009 by disputing the amount and requesting Respondent number 4 bank to give certain credits.
Being aggrieved by said numberice dated 10th August, 2009, Respondent number.
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.
2 and 3 are the principal shareholders, directors and persons in charge of Respondent No.1 Company.
In terms of the aforestated numberice dated 4th January, 2010, the Appellant M s Oasis Dealcom Pvt.
Respondent number4 gave a reply vide its letter dated 20th March, 2009 to letter dated 14th March, 2009 by asserting that numberice dated 17th January, 2009 had been companyrectly issued as per the provisions of Section 13 2 of the Act.
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.
Respondent number.
Ultimately, the Tribunal passed an order dated 10th June, 2010 in O.A. No.4 of 2010 setting aside the sale certificate.
However, the matter was adjourned to 5th March, 2010, to enable the parties to companyplete the pleadings.
By an order dated 18th February, 2011, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal companyfirmed the order passed by the Tribunal observing that material irregularities had been companymitted in companyducting 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 companyfirmed the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 24th August, 2011.
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 .
Ltd submitted its bid to purchase the flat, who was the sole bidder.
4 ING Vysya Bank had granted financial assistance to Respondent number.1 to 3 by way of Cash Credit facility.
The Appellant was represented by one of its Directors, Shri Agarwal, who appeared in person.
However, on 14th January, 2010, the Respondent borrowers filed an application for depositing the amount payable but on the same day, taking judicial numberice of the subsequent developments, the Tribunal dismissed the said application as it had become infructuous.
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 number been furnished by the borrowers.
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.
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.
On 11th January, 2010, when the Petition came up for hearing before the High Court, it was numbericed that the bank guarantee had number 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 companypany.
The Tribunal ordered to maintain status quo as on 28th January, 2010.
In companysideration of the aforesaid loan, Respondent number.1 to 3 had furnished security in terms of a Hypothecation of Book Debts, b Equitable mortgage of residential flat bearing number 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.
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.
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 17th December, 2009 passed by the DRT, Kolkata, Respondent number.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.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 24th August, 2011, the present appeals have been filed by the auction purchaser .
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.
Respondent No.
ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.
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.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under Respondent number.
