Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) IT is stated that the account of the petitionercompany became NPA on 26.01.2013 and the petitioner sought permission of the respondentState Bank of India for selling part of the properties which were mortgaged with the respondentState Bank for liquidating the loan liability. A proposal for restructuring the credit facility was also made on 01.02.2013 and 12.02.2013 however, the respondentBank vide letter dated 23.02.2013 refused the proposal. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 09.03.2013 disclosing an outstanding dues of Rs. 19,11,85,402/ and the borrower was directed to make payment within 60 days, failing which action contemplated under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was to be taken. The petitioner filed objection under Section 13(3A) of the Act however, the same stood rejected vide order dated 09.05.2013 and thereafter, the possession notice dated 17.07.2013 was published by the respondentBank in the newspaper on 24.07.2013. The petitionercompany challenged the same in S.A. No. 80 of 2013. The petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 5259 of 2013 seeking quashing of notice dated 17.07.2013. An interim order dated 12.02.2014 was passed by this Court restraining the respondentBank from dispossessing the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2268 of 2014 seeking permission for selling the mortgaged assets. Another application being I.A. No. 3587 of 2014 was filed for onetime settlement of the dues. The writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 07.08.2014 permitting the petitioner to raise the plea in so far as, the settlement in terms of RBI guidelines as well as permission for selling one of the collateral securities, were concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application in the pending S.A. No. 80 of 2013. The appeal was finally decided vide order dated 31.12.2014 whereby S.A. No. 80 of 2013 and the application filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(2.) ON 10.02.2015, when the matter was listed before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that onetime settlement offer of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondentBank however, it has not been made known to the petitioner under which scheme the onetime settlement offer of the petitioner has been rejected. Offer of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was "too low". In compliance of order dated 10.02.2015, a counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondentBank stating as under, "13. That with regard to the order of this Hon'ble Court regarding suppression of specific scheme of O.T.S., it is stated and submitted that the scheme on which the petitioner is harping and which is already rightly rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2014 is quite correct because that scheme is only with regard to dues of Rs. 10.00 crores and admittedly the petitioner is much heavily indebted and thus the same is rightly held by the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal that the same is not applicable. The Bank's scheme as directed to be produced before this Court as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.02.2015 will be complied by the respondent Bank but since the same is confidential document, the same will be directly produced before this Hon'ble Court for their kind consideration."
(3.) FROM the above, I find that it has not been disclosed by the respondentBank what was the amount at which the onetime settlement of the borrower could have been accepted by the respondentBank. This also does not appear from the materials on record that the borrower was directed to raise its offer to a certain extent. In order dated 07.08.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 5259 of 2013, this Court has recorded, "Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that admittedly value of the mortgaged property is more than the outstanding dues." In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank, the initial valuation of the mortgaged property at the time when the secured assets were taken by the respondentBank has not been disclosed. The petitioner has alleged that the value of the secured assets is more than 52 crores whereas, eauction notice dated 13.01.2015 has been issued for selling the properties for a meagre sum of Rs. 16.69 crores. The petitioner has brought on record a copy of Insolvency certificate in support of its claim that the secured assets are worth more than Rs. 52 crores.;