- (1.) The present special leave petition has been preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20-9-2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Jay Electric Wire Corpn. Employees Union v. Pravin Gada, 2011 6 MhLJ 675 and other connected matters whereby the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has quashed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short "DRAT") dated 3-3-2011 wherein DRAT had set aside the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short "DRT") and restored the confirmation of sale of immovable property in favour of the first respondent who is the petitioner before this Court. The High Court has ascribed certain reasons for quashing the order.
(2.) It is worth noting that after quashment of the order, the Division Bench had directed as follows: "We direct that the Recovery Officer attached to DRT to issue a public advertisement which shall be published in at least two newspapers, one in English and another in Kannada having circulation in Mysore, inviting bids for the sale of the property. The terms and conditions governing the sale shall be laid down by the Recovery Officer of DRT, and a fresh valuation shall be carried out on the basis of which the reserve price of the property shall be fixed. We record the statement made on behalf of Central Bank and Standard Chartered Bank by their counsel that both the banks shall cooperate with the Recovery Officer and shall meet all the expenses of the sale, including towards newspaper advertisements. On the request of the two banks, we further clarify that if the banks are ready and willing to meet the expenses for the issuance of a publication in any additional newspapers, that shall also be permitted by the Recovery Officer at the expenses which have been agreed to be borne by the banks. We direct the Recovery Officer to expedite the process of sale and to hold a meeting for fixing the terms and conditions within a period of three weeks from today. The sale process should be completed within a period of three months from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the Recovery Officer."
(3.) This Court while issuing notice on 25-11-2011, Pravin Gada v. Central Bank of India, SLPs (C) Nos. 30894-96 of 2011, order dated 25-11-2011 (SC) wherein it was directed: "Issue notice returnable in three weeks. Dasti in addition is permitted. Meanwhile, status quo as of today shall be maintained by the parties." had directed status quo to be maintained by the parties. When the matter was heard for some time it was submitted by Mr C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has grossly erred in directing the sale of the property by inviting bids despite the factum that public auction was not successful and eventually the sale was effected by the direction of DRT and ultimately the offer of Rs 2.5 crores was accepted from the petitioners herein. The learned Senior Counsel has urged many other contentions which need not be referred to in praesenti having regard to the nature of directions which we are going to pass today.;