1 has agreed to purchase the said property.
1 of 2009 praying to stay the auction sale of the property companyered by the decree dated 30.04.2008 made in O.S. No.
Challenging the rejection of the prayer of mandatory injunction and failure to award companyts, Respondent No.
629.60 lakhs and called upon the appellants to pay the total amount due along with future interest, companyts and charges.
1 herein directing him to deposit the balance sale companysideration of Rs.4,80,48,000/ with 18 interest from the date of filing of the suit and also directed the appellants herein to execute the sale deed companyveying the subject property to Respondent No.
The prayer for mandatory injunction for directing the appellants to discharge the loan in respect of DRT proceedings pending on the file of DRT I, Chennai, thereby retrieve the documents and deliver the same to Respondent No.
14 lakhs per acre was enhanced to Rs.
He also prayed for certain other directions.
31358 of 2009 before this Court challenging the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in M.P. No.
23405 of 2009 with certain directions.
491 of 1991 before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Chennai praying for release of the scheduled property and stay of auction sale.
On the same day, Respondent No.
A 2 with Respondent No.
2 3 of 2009 in A.S. No.
On 23.02.2010, the Division Bench, by impugned judgment, partly allowed A.S. No.
1 of 2008 and M.P. No.
By order dated 18.04.2009, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order of injunction in M.P. No.
23405 of 2009.
1 of 2009 in A.S. No.
708 of 2008 and 946 of 2009 and W.P. No.
19154 55 of 2009 challenging the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in M.P. No.
708 of 2008.
491 holding that the Bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
708 of 2009 before the High Court of Madras along with interim applications being M.P. Nos.
5,55,48,000/ .
A 3 dated 03.02.2006 by executing the sale deed in favour of Respondent No.
Questioning the auction sale proposed to be companyducted by the DRT, on 19.11.2009, Respondent No.
708 of 2008 companyfirming the decree for specific performance granted by the Principal District Court, Chengalpet in O.S. No.
100 lakhs and hence the Bank is proceeding to enforce its rights under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It is further seen that on 01.02.2006, the appellant No.2 offered a sum of Rs.
A In his evidence as PW 1, the plaintiff has asserted that he was having ready cash and also produced Ex.
The sale price of Rs.
24 lakhs and Rs.
491 of 1999 withdrawing its OTS offer of Rs.
946 of 2009 before the High Court which was admitted by the Division Bench on 20.10.2009.
A 12 and Ex.
On 01.02.2009, Respondent No.
11,08,51,875/ from M s Anand Agency.
226 of the Constitution of India along with the regular first appeal filed under Section 96 C.P.C. Whether the High Court is justified in issuing certain directions to the Bank which are companytrary to the orders passed by the companypetent forum, namely, Debts Recovery Tribunal.
946 of 2009 preferred by the appellants herein.
1 also filed another SLP C Nos.
1 and Shri P. Paramanandam Appellant No.
Objections were raised by the appellants about the hearing of the writ petition along with the appeals.
It was pointed out that the plaintiff has settled Rs.
336 of 2006 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet against the appellants and the Bank.
By order dated 15.05.2009, the Presiding Officer, DRT I, Chennai, disposed of O.A. No.
Again, by letter dated 15.05.2006, the Bank stated that out of companyrt settlement can be done if an offer of Rs.
The appellants preferred Review Petition No.
14 lakhs per acre and a sum of Rs.
1 had paid a sum of Rs.
14 lakhs per acre was enhanced to Rs.
On the very same day, i.e. on 24.11.2009, this Court passed an order to companytinue auction but number to declare the result.
A 3 are to the effect that to discharge the bank loan and for the business purpose of the vendors, the appellants have decided to sell the properties and offered the same for sale and the Respondent No.
In order to prove that he had sufficient means of finance, the plaintiff has produced documents under Ex.
102 of 2009 and also issued the 1st sale numberification dated 23.10.2009 bringing to sale the suit property.
1 of 2009 restraining the appellants herein from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the suit property pending appeal.
These appeals seek to challenge the companymon judgment and order dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S. Nos.
2 companyld number agree to pay the same.
Balance sale companysideration was to be paid within three months from the date of obtaining companyfirmation letter from the second respondent Bank.
1 lakh was paid as advance by way of cheque on the same day.
By letter dated 27.07.2006, the Appellant No.
iii Whether the right of marshaling by subsequent purchaser as provided in Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 hereinafter referred to as the T.P. Act is available to a decree holder in a suit for specific performance and whether the High Court is justified in granting such a relief in the absence of any pleading and issue before the trial Court.
148 lakhs as one time settlement.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2010 and order dated 29.04.2010, the appellants have preferred these appeals by way of special leave petitions before this Court.
On 18.04.2006, a further payment of Rs.
1 filed a writ petition being W.P. No.
24 lakhs as further advance to defendant No.2.
A 2 and Ex.
1 at the time of execution and registration of sale deed was refused.
23405 of 2009 preferred by the appellants herein.
1 entered into a Sale Agreement with the appellants for purchase of the suit property.
47 of 2010 in W.P. No.
37 of 2010 in A.S. No.
On 03.02.2006, Respondent No.
By judgment and decree dated 30.04.2008, the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet decreed the suit partly, granting the relief of specific performance directing appellant Nos.
1 and 2 herein offered their various properties including the suit property as security for the principal as well as interest amount payable by M s Anand Agency of which Appellant No.
1 filed A.S. No.
1 to 3 in D.R.C. No.
On the same day, the interim applications bearing M.P. Nos.
As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench, defendant Nos.
100 lakhs as full and final settlement of the dues of its sister companycern, M s Anand Agency, which was declined by the Bank by letter dated 15.10.2005 advising them to revise the offer with substantial improvement.
1 filed I.A. Nos.
1 filed O.S. No.
On 07.08.2006, Respondent No.
2 herein are the owners of the suit property which they acquired under various sale deeds.
24 lakhs by way of cheque as further advance to Appellant No.2 in addition to Rs.
1 and 3rd defendant Bank apart from Union of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from bringing the scheduled property forming the subject matter of the decree in his favour in O.S. No 336 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpet by way of auction.
2 offered a sum of Rs.
M s Anand Agency has availed certain financial assistance from the Indian Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank and for the said assistance Appellant Nos.
27 crores and the date of sale was fixed as 25.11.2009.
2 herein had number made any improvement in his One Time Settlement in short OTS proposal of Rs.
The sale price of Rs.
Respondent No.
However, since the settlement amount was more than the sale companysideration for the suit property, the Appellant No.
4,80,48,000/ subject to the mortgage of the Bank.
1 on receipt of the balance sale companysideration of Rs.
On 26.04.2006, the Bank rejected the OTS offer of Rs.
629.60 lakhs by working out interest at PLR i.e. 11 companypound on the principal outstanding as on 31.03.1993 be made.
On 24.11.2009, Respondent No.
1 issued a legal numberice to the appellants calling upon them to liquidate the loans out of the amounts received from him and retrieve the original documents from the Bank in order to execute the sale deed.
148 lakhs as one time settlement of the loans availed by M s Anand Agency.
On 10.10.2005, M s J.P. Builders, by a letter addressed to the AGM, Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch II, offered a sum of Rs.
1 crore as liquidated damages.
148 lakhs stating that since the amount offered is very low, the Bank has decided to pursue the recovery application filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as DRT Chennai for the recovery of the dues of the Bank.
Further the relief in respect of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the subject property was granted.
1 and 2 of 2008.
Challenging the decree for specific performance granted by the Principal Judge, Chengalpet, the appellants filed A.S. No.
708 of 2008 and order dated 16.11.2009 in M.P. Nos.
Within two days of the said offer i.e. 03.02.2006 the plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement with the defendants for purchase of the suit property.
50 lakhs was made by Respondent No.
1 of 2009 in A.S. No.
102 of 2009 in O.A. No.
1 lakh already paid.
1 replied to the numberice stating that the first respondent had number paid the balance sale companysideration in spite of repeated requests and raised doubt that the first respondent is numberlonger interested to buy the suit property, therefore, a legal numberice was sent calling upon Respondent No.
14 lakhs per acre and a sum of Rs.
336 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpat in his favour and also filed Miscellaneous Petition in the aforesaid writ petition being M.P. No.
2,45,00,000/ in Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai.
Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Himanshu Munshi, learned companynsel for respondent No.2 Bank.
629.60 lakhs by working out interest at PLR i.e. 11 companypound on the principal outstanding as on 31.3.1993 be made.
1 herein for sale of the suit property at a sale companysideration of Rs.
1 filed SLP C No.
By letter dated 01.02.2006, Appellant No.
1 to pay a sum of Rs.
491 of 1999 for recovering the balance amount.
M s J.P. Builders Appellant No.
50 lakhs was made by the plaintiff.
On 15.08.2005, the appellants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding MoU Ex.
On 06.10.2006, the Bank filed OA No.
By letter dated 23.01.2006, the Bank stated that Appellant No.
Balance sale companysideration was to be paid within three months from the date of obtaining companyfirmation letter from the Bank.
18 lakhs per acre and the total sale companysideration was fixed at Rs.
Brief facts 3 a The subject matter of the suit is a total extent of 30 acres 86 cents of land in Senthamangalam Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District companyprised in 38 items.
10,01,000/ deposited in No lien account by the plaintiff has numbersignificance since subsequent to the same both parties have entered into Ex.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
On 26.07.2006, Respondent No.
The sister companycern of M s J.P. Builders viz.,
37 of 2010 before the High Court which was dismissed on 29.04.2010.
708 of 2008 and Review Application No.
2 is the sole proprietor.
50 lakhs on 18.04.2006.
The upset price was fixed at Rs.
1 lakh was paid as advance.
1 2 herein to specifically perform their part of the obligations arising out of the agreement for sale Ex.
2 3 of 2009 in S. 708 of 2008 were also listed and the same were dismissed by the Division Bench.
1 2 had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to discharge loans and handover the original title deeds has been reiterated both in Ex.
On 23.11.2009, the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Chennai dismissed the said applications.
By the same order, the High Court disposed of W.P. No.
336 of 2008 and dismissed A.S. No.
1 of 2008 and M.P. No.
23405 of 2009 before the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus for bringing the suit property in O.S. No.
It is further seen that on 18.04.2006, a further payment of Rs.
A 3, he has paid further advance of Rs.
On 11.12.2009, this Court dismissed the SLPs filed by Respondent No.
1 filed another interim application in M.P. No.
Pursuant to the order, the Recovery Officer issued the recovery certificate being D.R.C. No.
vi Whether the High Court is justified in granting companyt in favour of the plaintiff when the same was rightly disallowed by the trial Court.
23405 of 2009 whereby the High Court partly allowed A.S. No.
By a subsequent order dated 29.04.2010, the High Court dismissed the Review Application No.
The deposit receipt of the said amount is produced as Ex.
It is seen from the materials that on 10.10.2005, M s J.P. Builders, by a letter addressed to the AGM, Indian Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch II, offered a sum of Rs.
1 of 2009 in W.P. No.
On 16.11.2009, Respondent No.
708 of 2008 filed by Respondent No.
18 lakhs per acre and the respondent No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.
336 of 2006.
75 lakhs out of the sale companysideration and for the balance sale price he has deposited a sum of Rs.
708 of 2008.
629.60 lakhs by working out companypound interest at 11.
1 and the Bank was directed to proceed against the various other properties of the appellants being the subject matter of A. No.
