Delhi High Court
Rajesh Gems And Jewels Pvt Ltd. & ... vs India Overseas Bank on 20 September, 2017
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6653/2017 and CM APPL. 27673/2017
RAJESH GEMS AND JEWELS PVT LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Sanjeev Bhandari and Mr Amit Dhall,
Advs. along with Mr Rajesh Kumar Luthra, Managing
Director
versus
INDIA OVERSEAS BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Karan Khanna and Ms Asmita Kumar,
Advs for IOB
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 20.09.2017
1. Mr Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank, states that the
affidavit directed to be filed by the respondent, has been filed belatedly as
he was indisposed. Mr Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, states
that he has received a copy of the said affidavit.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank concedes that till date, the
Bank has not been adopting the practice of stating in the public notices
issued for auctioning mortgaged/attached properties as to whether the said
properties are freehold or leasehold. We find it to be rather strange. If it is
clarified in the public notice that the property sought to be auctioned is
freehold, then it is natural that many more bids would be received. All the
necessary information relating to a property sought to be auctioned by the
Bank needs to be set out in the public notice, which should also include its
location, dimensions, measurements, status of freehold or leasehold, instead
of simply mentioning the Municipal numbers/Khasra numbers and
addresses therein.
3. We are informed by learned counsels for the parties that all other
Banks/Financial Institutions are also adopting the same practice of not
furnishing relevant details in the public notice in respect of the immovable
properties proposed to be auctioned by them.
4. We are of the opinion that it is extremely desirable for all
Banks/Financial Institutions to be as transparent as possible when putting
immovable properties, mortgaged with them/attached by Court order to
auction, by furnishing all the relevant details that can make it an attractive
proposition for bidders to participate in the auctions conducted by them.
This would also be in the larger public interest inasmuch as the best
possible price for the properties could be fetched when put to auction. We
deem it appropriate to direct the respondent/Bank in the present
proceedings to ensure that henceforth, the public notices issued for
auctioning all immovable properties under the SARFAESI Act, contain all
the relevant details and state whether the same is freehold or leasehold,
give its measurement, location etc., including other relevant details for it to
attract as many bids as is possible.
5. A copy of the present order shall be furnished by the
respondent/Bank to the Indian Banking Institution for it in turn, to
communicate the same to all the other Banks and Financial Institutions for
information and compliance.
6. Coming back to the case in hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/Bank states that even if all the secured assets/mortgaged
properties, including two residential properties of the petitioners are
auctioned, the Bank will only be able to generate a sum of Rs.30 crores
(approx), whereas the outstanding liability of the petitioner is to the tune of
Rs.78 crores. He submits that efforts have been made by the Bank twice
to auction the mortgaged properties, but no bid has been received till now.
He further states that as the petitioners claim that their sundry debtors owe
them a sum of Rs.40 crore (approx), which position is not disputed by the
petitioner No.2, Managing Director of the petitioner No.1/Company, who is
present in Court, he requests that the petitioners be directed to furnish the
names and amounts owed to them, for the Bank to take steps to recover the
said amounts.
7. We are informed that the books of accounts of the petitioner
No.1/Company are available at premises bearing Shop No.2520-21, Gali
No.7, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh which is in the possession of the
respondent/Bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if access
is given to the said premise, the petitioners will be in a position to furnish
the list of the debtors with the relevant details to the Bank.
8. Mr Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank assures us that
necessary cooperation shall be extended to the petitioners for opening the
premises in question and for accessing the books of accounts on the
condition that the details be furnished to the Bank immediately.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. As learned counsel for the petitioners states that no further orders are
required to be passed in the present case, the petition is disposed of.
11. List on 14.11.2017 in the category of 'Directions' only for the
respondent/Bank to report compliance of directions issued in paras 4 & 5
above.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017/bg
