JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) These are the applications for seeking certain directions in view of
the subsequent developments after the order passed on 5.7.2012.
(2.) We have heard Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior
counsel for the Central Bank of India, respondent No. 1.
(3.) Before we advert to order dated 5.7.2012, it is necessitous to refer
to order dated 27.3.2012. In the said order, after referring to the order
passed by the High Court in W. P. No. 2689 and other connected matters, the
interim order passed by this Court on 25.11.2011, recording the contentions
of Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jaideep
Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Central Bank of India and taking note
of the chart produced in respect of the dues of the Central Bank of India,
Standard Chartered Bank and Workmen through Official Liquidator, this Court
passed the following order: -
"It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that in fitness of things
and regard being had to the concept of obtaining of the highest
price in Court sale, having of auction is the warrant and,
therefore, auction should be directed to be held. The learned
senior counsel further submitted that the property is likely to
fetch much more amount than that has been deposited by the
petitioners.
Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel would contend that
the sale had been given effect to in the year 2006 on acceptance
of 2.5 crores and with the efflux of time if there has been a
price rise solely on the said base a public auction should not
be directed.
Be it noted that at one point of time, a third party had
deposited 6 crores to purchase the property but later on he
withdrew as the matter was litigated in Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and regard
being had to the totality of the circumstances, we issue the
following directions: -
(i) The property in question be put to auction by
issuing a public advertisement in at least two newspapers one in
English and another in Kannada language having wide circulation
in the city of Mysore inviting bids for the sale of the
property.
(ii) It shall be mentioned in the advertisements that the
reserve price is 3 crores and the same shall be deposited before
the Recovery Officer of the DRT to enable one to participate in
the bid.
(iii) Any one who would not deposit the amount would not
be permitted to participate in the auction as speculative bids
are to be totally avoided.
(iv) The newspaper publication shall be made within a
period of two weeks stipulating that the deposit is a condition
precedent for participation in the auction which shall be made
before the DRT within a week from the date of publication of the
advertisement in the newspaper.
(v) The auction shall be held within a period of two
weeks from the issuance of the advertisement which shall state
the specified time and place for the auction.
(vi) The petitioners without prejudice to the contentions
to be raised and dealt with in these Special Leave Petitions
shall participate in the bid without the deposit as they have
purchased the property in the year 2006.
(vii) The bid shall not be finalized and the bid sheet
shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover.
We reiterate at the cost of repetition that the above
arrangements are subject to the result of the final adjudication
in these Special Leave Petitions.
List the matter after five weeks. "
;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.