M/S Joule Infrastructure Private ... vs Indian Overseas Bank & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 6550 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 6550 Del
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2015

Delhi High Court

M/S Joule Infrastructure Private ... vs Indian Overseas Bank & Anr on 2 September, 2015

Author: G. S. Sistani

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 8355 /2015
   %                       Judgment dated 02nd September, 2015
       M/S JOULE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR
                                                                   ..... Petitioners
                           Through       Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with
                                         Mr. Hemant Chaudhari and Mr. Sandeep
                                         Kumar, Advocates
                           versus
       INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ANR                            ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for the respondent bank.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Debts Recovery

Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') and the order of the

Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') dated

21.08.2015, has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

2. The complaint of the petitioners is that the bank has failed to take into

consideration the guidelines as provided in the case of Ram Kishun and

Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported at AIR 2012 SC 2288 to be

followed at the time of sale/auction of the mortgaged property. It is also

submitted that the bank has not obtained a valuation report with respect to

the entire property No.7-A/3, Friends Colony(West), New Delhi-110065

and the valuation report which has been handed over in Court today does

not give the basis for arriving at a figure of Rs.18 Crores while the

valuation report obtained by the petitioners shows the market value at

Rs.32 Crores. Mr. Tiku, learned Senior Counsel submits that the valuation

report can either be on the basis of Circle Rate or on the basis of recent

sale(s) with respect to the properties in the vicinity.

3. During the course of hearing, we had made an offer to the petitioners to

look for a buyer to purchase the property so that the dues of the bank can

be cleared, but no firm offer has been produced, however Mr. Tiku submits

that in case six weeks time is granted, the petitioners would approach the

bank for an amicable settlement and also look for a buyer. We are

informed by the counsel for the parties that for the auction to be held on

September 03, 2015, no bid has been received.

4. We dispose of the writ petition with the following agreed terms:

(i) The petitioners will approach to the bank for a one time settlement;

(ii) The bank will consider the offer sympathetically and in accordance with law;

(iii) It will be open for the petitioners to look for an appropriate buyer within a period of six weeks from today;

(iv) In case, there is no settlement or no buyer is identified by the petitioners, it would be open for the bank to put the property on auction after a period of six weeks from today. All necessary

safeguards as per the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be followed;

      (v)     The prayer for interim relief before the Tribunal shall be
              decided in accordance with law; and
      (vi)    Rights of all the parties are open.