Delhi High Court
Sapna Arora vs Indian Overseas Bank And Anr on 14 January, 2020
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 449/2020 & CM APPL. 1236/2020
Date of decision: 14.1.2020
SAPNA ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anurag Rawat, Advocate.
versus
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gyanendra Agrawal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM APPL.1237/2020 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 449/2020 & CM APPL. 1236/2020
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for the second time.
3. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondent no.1 bank is not
complying with the directions issued by this Court on 13.12.2019 in
W.P.(C)No.13108/2019. It is contended that respondent no.1 bank has
proceeded to order a fresh auction of the subject property without adhering
to the directions of this Court.
4. To be noted, the subject property is described in prayer clause "a" of
the writ petition. Prayer clause "a" of the writ petition reads as follows:-
" (a) set-aside E-Auction Sale notice dated 01.01.2020
Issue under SARFAESI Act for the Immovable property
i.e. measuring 1645.00 sq. fts. & terrace areas 120.00
W.P. (C) 449/2020 Page 1 of 4
sq. ft. bearing Flat No.110, First Floor, Mahagun
Maple Plot No.26, Block-F, Sector-50, Noida, U.P,
passed by authorize officer under SARFAESI Act, 2002
Asset Recovery Management Branch Rachna Building,
4th Floor, 2 Rajendra Place, Pusa Road, New Delhi-
110008;"
5. Besides what is noted above, it is also the grievance of the petitioner
that the respondent no.1 bank has approached the District Magistrate at
Gautam Budh Nagar, who, vide order dated 13.12.2019 has issued notice to
the petitioner (i.e. Ms. Sapna Arora) and her husband Mr. Manoj Kumar on
an application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002.
6. It is stated that the order of the District Magistrate discloses that the
said application was moved by the respondent no.1 bank wrongly qua the
subject property based on the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the
Allahabad High Court in W.P. (C) No. 38578/2018.
6.1 The order of the District Magistrate is appended on page 37 of the
paper book.
7. My attention in this regard has been drawn to the order of the
Allahabad High Court dated 11.12.2018, to which I have made reference
above, to demonstrate that it refers to an industrial property situate at Khasra
No. 387, Khata No. 61, Kota Tehsil, District Mathura (in short "Mathura
property") and not to the subject property.
7.1 The argument being that the respondent no.1 bank has misled the
District Magistrate as regards the immovable property qua which order has
been issued by the Allahabad High Court.
W.P. (C) 449/2020 Page 2 of 4
8. Insofar as the subject property is concerned, it is the petitioner's case
that even though this Court had directed on 13.12.2019 that the petitioner's
proposal for One Time Settlement (in short "OTS") should be considered,
the same has not be considered and the respondent no.1 bank has proceeded
straightaway to issue an E-auction sale notice dated 01.01.2020.
9. It is averred that the sale of the subject property which concerns the
present proceedings is slated for 21.01.2020.
10. Mr. Gyanendra Agrawal, who, appears on advance notice on behalf of
the respondent no.1 bank says that vide communication dated 13.12.2019,
the petitioner and her husband were informed that their proposal for full and
final settlement, whereby Rs. 50,00,000/- was offered has been rejected.
11. Mr. Agrawal submits that, notwithstanding the rejection, the
petitioner could participate in the impending auction concerning the subject
property.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record placed before me, it appears that the District Magistrate has taken
note of the subject property though it is not adverted to in the order dated
11.12.2018 passed by the Allahabad High Court.
13. Since, I am informed that the proceedings before the District
Magistrate are slated for 17.01.2020, the petitioner would have, to my mind,
an opportunity to bring this purported error to the notice of the District
Magistrate on the said date. The District Magistrate would, thereafter, I am
sure pass an appropriate order.
14. Insofar as the subject property is concerned, a copy of the
communication dated 13.12.2019 whereby her OTS offer was rejected has
been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner.
W.P. (C) 449/2020 Page 3 of 4
15. The petitioner, therefore, has the option not only to participate in the
impending E-auction but also make improvements to her OTS proposal.
16. In case, a fresh proposal, which is substantially improved, is
submitted by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 bank will, necessarily, be
required to consider the same.
17. To be noted, as per the E-auction sale notice dated 01.01.2020, the
dues payable by the petitioner and her husband as on 31.12.2019 have been
pegged at Rs. 93,01,862.38/-. The reserve price has been fixed at Rs. 104.63
lakhs (inclusive of 1% TDS, as per Section 194 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961).
17.1 The petitioner will bear in mind these aspects while making a fresh
proposal.
18. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
19. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application shall stand
closed.
20. For the purposes of good order and record, the Registry is directed to
scan and upload the communication dated 31.12.2019 sent by the respondent
no.1 bank to the petitioner and her husband.
21. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
JANUARY 14, 2020/c
