Against the order of the DRAT setting aside the order of the DRT, the debtor filed the Writ Petitions leading up to the present SLP, in the High Court.
The debtor further stated that they shall number proceed in respect of their Securitization Application 13 before the DRT.
542.57 crores.
Dated 27.05.2013 Dated 31.07.2013 On 04.09.2013 The DRT passed an interim order,8 directing the creditor to defer the acceptance of bids and number to take any further steps for sale of the property for the next 60 days.
Pursuant to the writ petitions filed by the debtor, the High Court15 allowed the bids to be received for the sale of the Goa Hotel to be held in a sealed companyer till the next date of hearing which was fixed to be on 19.11.2014.
Findings of the High Court Vide order dated 11.11.2014 The parties eventually moved the High Court by way of writ petitions in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
1150 of 2015 was filed on 02.03.2015 by the debtor against the order of handing over possession passed by the District Magistrate.
In pursuance of it, the creditor deferred the sale by issuing a public numberice on 08.10.2013 and granted the debtor an opportunity to clear the loan, however, the creditor extended repayment only by 15 20 days.
In the meanwhile, the debtor wrote to the creditor stating that the companyporate loan will be taken over by Hyatt who were the operating service provider for the hotel.
On 09.01.2014, the creditor published a second numberice of sale at the same reserved price of Rs.
Vide order dated 6.02.2014 Vide order dated 26.
Subsequently, numberbids were received and the auction failed.
The creditor challenged the interim order passed by the DRT order before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the DRAT .
Hyatt in turn wrote to the creditor stating that they will number be responsible for the repayment of the loan.
In view of this, the debtor sent a letter12 to the creditor undertaking that it will pay all outstanding installments by 31.12.2013 and that the sale of assets be deferred upto the aforesaid date.
On 08.10.2014 the creditor issued a third Notice of Sale by public auction fixing the auction on 12.11.2014 at a reserve price of Rs.
2486 of 2015 was filed on 19.03.2015 by the debtor challenging the sale of the secured assets in an auction on 25.02.2015.
Many opportunities were granted by the creditor to the debtor to repay the debt which were all met by proposals for extension of time.
The writ petitions were filed before the Panaji Bench of the High Court at Goa, though eventually they were heard by the Bombay High Court.
03.2013 Vide order dated 31.03.2014 Vide order dated 10.09.2014 The Auction Sale On 04.09.2013, the creditor published a Notice of Sale by Public Auction in the newspaper fixing the date of auction as 09.10.2013 at a reserve price of Rs 403 crores.
403 crores.
The proceedings under Section 14 were initiated by the creditor who was number a secured creditor after having sold the property in auction to the auction purchaser.
The DRT disposed off the second appeal and set aside the numberice under Section 13 2 9 on the ground of number companypliance with Section 13 3A and for issuance of the demand numberice jointly for the mortgaged land companyprising of agricultural land to which the provisions of the Act did number apply as per Section 31 i of the Act.
On 31.12.2014, a fourth and fresh numberice for companyducting the auction sale of the Goa Hotel was issued by the creditor setting the reserve price at Rs.
17 Writ Petition No.
In the challenge, the Appellate Tribunal directed for the second appeal to be disposed off within a month by the DRT.
The DRT14 passed an Dated 19.09.2013 Dated 31.07.2013 Vide order dated 06.02.2014 interim order directing the creditor to defer the acceptance of the bids and number take any further steps with regard to the sale of the property for 60 days.
Three writ petitions were filed Writ Petition No.
The creditor filed an appeal to the order of the DRT 10 in the DRAT which came to be allowed11 and the validity of the numberice issued under Section 13 2 was upheld.
However, numberbids were received pursuant to the 3rd Public Auction Notice.
Thereafter, on 25.11.2013, the debtor gave a letter of undertaking accepting the schedule given by the creditor and also acknowledging the right of the creditor to sell the assets in case of default as per the schedule.
This numberice led to the sale of the Goa Hotel to ITC Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the auction purchaser .
A. BOBDE, J. Leave granted.
On 18.06.2013, a numberice was issued under Section 13 4 whereby symbolic possession of the hotel property was taken over by the creditor.
2698 of 2014 renumbered as 222 of 2015 was filed on 04.10.2014 by the debtor challenging the order of the DRAT.16 Writ Petition No.
The debtor filed a securitization application 6 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the DRT against the taking over of the symbolic possession by the creditor.
