Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) Uniworth Apparel Limited had a financial liability towards the I.C.I.C.I. Bank. As and by way of collateral security Uniworth charged their assets including a landed property at Maharashtra outside the State of West Bengal with I.C.I.C.I. Bank. Uniworth could not repay the financial support that was extended to them by I.C.I.C.I. Bank. As a result, I.C.I.C.I. Bank engaged Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ARCIL) to dispose of the landed property for recovery of their financial support that was extended to Uniworth, under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assistance and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act). Under the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act the secured creditors were given special power not only to walk over the property kept as security but also to take possession and sell it for recovery of their dues. ARCIL accordingly proceeded to take possession of the property and sell it by public auction. Ultimately, Webtech Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company also carrying on business at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, became the successful bidder and purchased the property for valuable consideration. Webtech took over possession after completion of sale through a conveyance executed by ARCIL. The transaction was concluded on April 12, 2010 wherein Webtech paid a sum of Rs. 14 crores to ARCIL as and by way of bid price for the land in question. Webtech would contend, they purchased the property in good faith. They were bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. They did not have knowledge of any encumbrance Uniworth or ARCIL had over the said land in question. It subsequently transpired, on February 13, 2007 there had been some negotiation by ARCIL with Excel Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., a Calcutta Company, who wanted to purchase the very land at and for a sum of Rs.9.5 crores. Excel claimed that on February 13, 2007 one Mr. Sanjoy Gupta agreed to sell the land in question on behalf of ARCIL and the deal was stuck for a consideration of Rs.7.5 crores. The said agreement was confirmed as would appear from a writing dated February 13, 2007 appearing at pages 35-53 of the Paper Book. The copy of the document as appearing in the Paper Book would show two initials, one by "S.G" and the other one as illegible. No seal of any Company was there. The document was not stamped as would appear from the photocopy appearing at the paper book. It would further appear, Excel, by a letter dated February 16, 2007 received on October 16, 2007 by one S. Gupta, sent a cheque for Rs. 9.5 crores drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank in favour of ARCIL. ARCIL would, however, contend, they did not accept the cheque. On December 17, 2007 Excel filed a suit in this Court for specific performance of the said agreement. Significant to note, the suit was for specific performance of a contract alleged to have been entered into by and between the parties where by the plaintiff wanted to buy and the defendant Nos. I and 2 wanted to sell an immovable property situated at Maharashtra. Prayer (a) of the plaint appearing at pages 159 to 160 is set out hereunder : "(a) A decree for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale recorded in the document dated February 13, 2007 being Annexure 'A' hereto by directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to issue in favour of the plaintiff Sale Certificate in respect of assets mentioned in Schedule I to Annexure 'A' hereto and on as is where is basis in terms of the said agreement."
(2.) Webtech would contend, they did not know about the pendency of the suit. From the records it would appear, no positive steps were taken in the suit for any interim protection until February 11, 2011 when Excel filed an application before the learned Single Judge, inter alia, asking for an order of restraint. Excel also amended the plaint by challenging the subsequent transfer in favour of Webtech. By way of amendment paragraphs 20 and 21 were introduced. They are quoted below : "20. It is evident that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had wrongfully sold and dealt with the assets and properties of the defendant No. 3 with full knowledge that the same had earlier been sold to the plaintiff to the defendant No. 4. The said puorted sale is void, illegal and fraudulent. The plaintiff reasonably and bona jUely believes that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendant No. 4 will transfer the said property or create further third party interests, It Is therefore, necessary In the interest of justice that the said Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation be added as a party to the suit, 21. The defendant Nos. 1 an 2 in collusion with defendant No. 4 sold are planning to create further third party interests in regard to the said property. The property of the defendant No. 3 cannot be sold or alienated without specific permission from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation."
(3.) Significant to note, no relief was claimed as would appear from paragraphs 20 and 21 or from the prayer quoted above. Further significant to note, Excel advisedly did not ask for possession of the property. They did not either claim to be in possession. We wonder how a decree could be passed finally that could be effective. We do not wish to make any detailed discussion on that score. We shall do so at the appropriate stage if occasion comes in an appropriate proceeding.;