JUDGEMENT
S.N.H. Zaidi, J. (Chairperson) -
(1.)HEARD parties' Counsel on admission. The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.8.2012 whereby the learned Tribunal below has reduced the reserve price of the property in question by 15% on the application of respondent No. 2. Mr. Dhupar points out that the appellant is the borrower and the property in question, is a secured asset, which is in possession of the respondent, secured creditor. He further points out that before putting the property in question to auction sale, the secured creditor had obtained its valuation report dated 14.1.2010, according to which, the market value was Rs. 54.71 crores and the distress sale value was Rs. 46.50 crores. He also points out that the reserve price of the property was, however, fixed at Rs. 40.50 crores, which was challenged by filing the S.A. before the Tribunal below and, ultimately, in the appeal, with the consent of the parties, this Tribunal had fixed the reserve price at Rs. 46.50 crores and the property was put to sale at such price, but the auction failed as no bid was received. Mr. Dhupar also points out that the secured creditor thereafter reduced the reserve price on it own and again put the property to sale at a reserve price of Rs. 41.85 crores and when no bidder came forward at such price, it further reduced the reserve price to Rs. 37.67 crores but again the auction failed as no bid was received. Ho also points out that an application was then moved before the Tribunal for further reducing the reserve price by 25% which was, however, allowed to the extent of 15% by the order impugned. The contention of Mr. Dhupar is that though the appellant was having a genuine buyer for the said property, but due to continual fall in reserve price he did not come forward as he was expecting that the reserve price would fall further. He also submits that due to cartelization, the genuine buyers are not allowed to participate and no bids were received. Mr. Dhupar further says that the property be put to sale at the reserve price of Rs. 37.67 crores again and the appellant be allowed a month's time to bring a buyer for not less than the said price.
(2.)MR . Dobhal, on the other hand, submits that every time the reserve price of the property was reduced, it was done in accordance with the order of the Tribunal below. He further points out that the appellant had stated before the DRT that it was having the buyers to the property and the Tribunal had given it the opportunity to bring those buyers and had also directed to deposit some amount to show its bona fide, but the appellant did not comply with that those orders and no amount was deposited. He also points out that an amount of more than Rs. 85 crores is due on the appellant and in the last four years no amount has been deposited by it. Mr. Dobhal also points out that the property in question is in the form of an unfinished nine -storey building which, as per his instructions, was constructed keeping in view the requirements of the buyers from the Gulf countries and that is why it could not be sold. He submits that wide publicity for the sale was made every time and notices were even published in the newspaper of the Gulf countries at the request of the appellant so as to attract the buyers, but no bid was received. Mr. Dobhal also submits that the application for reduction of the reserve price was filed by the authorised person of the assignee company.
Considering the submissions of the parties' Counsel, I am inclined to give an opportunity to the appellant/borrower to bring buyer for the said property for an amount not less than the reserve price of Rs. 37.67 crores. It has been informed that fresh sale notice in pursuance of the order impugned has not yet been issued. Let sale notice be published with the same reserve price as was fixed at the previous auction. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. In view of the final disposal of the appeal, the application (I.A. 592/2012) filed seeking exemption from pre -deposit also stands disposed of.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.