SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by an intending purchaser in connection with a proceeding under section 17 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initially an order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on December 07, 2017, whereby one M/s. Sunflower Goods (P) Limited was permitted, as the then intending purchaser, to deposit an amount as earnest money, upon which the applicant bank was to communicate its decision on such proposal for the purpose of sale of the property in question to the said intending purchaser. Subsequently, such arrangement having failed to materialize due to M/s. Sunflower Goods (P) Limited having not taken steps in terms of the same, the borrower/present opposite party no. 1, M/s. Alogoma Steels Limited, took out an application before the tribunal, praying inter alia that the name of the intending purchaser, M/s. Sunflower Goods (P) Limited, be substituted by M/s. CIC Steels Pvt. Ltd. (the present petitioner), as well as for consequential reliefs, including that the properties in question be sold free from all encumbrances, charges, liabilities, liens, including charges of the applicant bank in favour of the present petitioner, at a consideration of Rs. 7,70,00,000/-, as well as to appoint a Receiver to execute and register necessary deeds/documents for transferring the said properties in favour of the present petitioner. Such application was adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated December 15, 2017, whereby the Tribunal passed an order that the intending purchaser, being the present petitioner, must deposit Rs. 50 lakhs by December 18, 2017 and further Rs. 1,42,50,000/- by January 03, 2018 with the applicant bank, that the applicant bank was directed to communicate their decision regarding the proposal to the intending purchaser (present petitioner) within 25 days from depositing the earnest money and, if the proposal was not accepted by the applicant bank, the applicant bank was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,92,50,000/- to the intending purchaser, being the present petitioner. The previous order dated December 07, 2017 was modified to such extent. Thereafter, there were communications between the present petitioner and the applicant bank (present opposite party no. 2) whereby the petitioner not only expressed its intention to proceed with the purchase but also deposited the amount, as directed by virtue of the order dated December 15, 2017.
(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to several documents, photocopies of which have been annexed to the present revisional application, in support of such contention of the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at no point of time did the opposite party no. 2/bank communicate its decision, regarding proposal of purchase, to the petitioner, let alone within 25 days from deposit of earnest money as directed in the order dated December 15, 2017. Photocopy of a document, apparently being a purported communication dated March 28, 2018, from the opposite party no. 2-bank to the opposite party no. 1-borrower, is placed on behalf of the petitioner, from which it appears that the opposite party no. 2-bank communicated to the borrower that, with reference to a purported letter given by the opposite party no. 1, received by the bank allegedly on January 03, 2018, the bank advised the borrower that the proposal had been approved and controlled by the appropriate authority of the bank. By the same communication, it was advised to deposit the entire amount of the proposal positively by the next date, that is, March 29, 2018. It is pointed out that even this date was much beyond the stipulated 25 days as per order dated December 15, 2017. At the bottom of the purported communication dated March 28, 2018, there was an endorsement "Copy forwarded to 'CIC STEELS PVT. LTD.' 4, Fairlie place, Kolkata - 700001 for information".;