Delhi High Court
M/S Joule Infrastructure Private ... vs Indian Overseas Bank & Anr on 26 April, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4558/2016 & CM 26387/2016
M/S JOULE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR
..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Hemant Chaudhri with
Mr. Arjun Bhaskar, Advocates
versus
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Pramod Kumar with
Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 26.04.2017
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2016 passed by
the DRT-I, Delhi, whereunder the petitioner No.2/guarantor had challenged
the valuation report in respect of premises No.7A/3, Friends Colony (West),
New Delhi, offered by him to the respondent No.1/Bank, on behalf of the
petitioner No.1/borrower.
2. By the impugned order dated 28.3.2016, the petitioner No.2 was
granted an opportunity to bring his own buyer for any of the floors of the
subject premises as per his own valuation, within 15 days from the date of
passing of the said order. It was however clarified by DRT that in the event
he fails to bring a buyer, the respondent No.1/Bank shall confirm the auction
sale, if any bid is received by it, in accordance with law.
3. Having regard to the fact that the remedy of appeal is available to the
petitioners, we are of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable
in this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners explains that when the impugned
order was passed, there was no Presiding Officer in the DRAT due to which,
the petitioners had to approach this Court directly. He also clarifies that
despite an opportunity granted to the petitioner No.2 to bring his own buyer
for any of the floors of the subject premises, as per his own valuation, he
was unable to identify any buyer.
5. Further, counsel for the respondent No.1/Bank states that the Bank too
did not receive any bids in terms of the minimum price fixed in respect of
the subject premises. He however states that the respondent No.1/Bank had
taken over the symbolic possession of the suit premises, vide order dated
24.4.2015. Subsequently, the respondent No.1/Bank had approached the
learned CMM for appointing a Receiver to take over physical possession of
the suit premises.
6. Vide order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the learned Predecessor Bench,
the respondent No.1/Bank was restrained from taking possession of the
secured assets and the petitioners were directed to maintain status quo in
respect thereof. Position remains the same till date.
7. The present petition is disposed of, along with the pending
application, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the learned
DRAT for raising a grievance against the order dated 28.3.2016 passed by
the DRT. The interim orders dated 20.5.2016 and 27.7.2016 shall remain in
operation for a period of two weeks reckoned from today, to enable the
petitioners to approach the learned DRAT for appropriate relief including
interim orders, if any.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 26, 2017
sk/rkb
