Kerala High Court
M/S.Pearl Hill Builders And Developers vs Union Of India on 12 November, 2024
1
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S.PEARL HILL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.ABDUL NAZAR, PUTHEN PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE,
MOORIYAD P.O., CHALAPPURAM-673002.
BY ADVS.
G.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRIN.RAYNOLD FERNANDEZ
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND
JUSTICE, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
HEAD OFFICE, VELLYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4TH RESPONDENT.
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE,
VELLYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
5 CHIEF MANAGER,
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, MALABAR
PALACE, GH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673001.
2
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
6 C.ABDUL MANAF
AGED 51 YEARS, SON OF C.HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT
CHOLAMUGHATH HOUSE, THAZHEKODE WEST. PIN 679 341,
THAZHEKODE VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA
FINANCIAL CORPORATION BRANCH OFFICE, MALABAR PALACE,
GH ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673 001.
7 K.B. PADMADAS
SON OF BALAKRISHNAN, THEERTHAM, KOOLIYATTUVALAPPIL
(H), PUDUKKAD, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR PIN 680 010
8 T.P.SALEEM
SON OF T.V.PUSHPANGATHAN, THASHNATH (H), CHENTRAPPINI
P.O., PIN 680 687
9 VARUN P.
SON OF PEETHAMBARAN, HOUSE NO.28/2453, POTTAMMAL,
KUTHIRAVATTAM P.O., CALICUT PIN 673 16.
10 EDWIN JOSEPH
SON OF T.T.JOSEPH, TREASA GRADEN, CHETHIKKULAM,
ELATHUR P.O., PIN 673 303
11 ANIL KUMAR S.
AGE NOT KNOWN, SON OF M.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, V.P.HOUSE,
CHANTHANATHOPPU P.O., KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, PIN 691 014,
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT
12 PEETHAMBARAN
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER,
HOUSE NO.28/2453, POTTAMMAL, KUTHIRAVATTAM P.O.,
CALICUT. PIN 673 16.
BY ADVS.
R3 TO R5 BY SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
BY SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
R7 TO R10 & R12 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
BY MS.NISHA GEORGE
R2 BY K.B. SONY, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON
09.09.2024, THE COURT ON 12.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash
Ext.P5 auction notice of the petitioner's properties issued by
the respondent-Kerala Financial Corporation.
2. The petitioner is stated to be a company in
possession of 16.21 ares of land in Kozhikode. The petitioner
had constructed a commercial building having around
50000 sq. ft., in six floors at an estimated cost of Rs.50 crores
after availing credit facilities from the 5th respondent for
Rs.5 crores sanctioned on 30.10.2013. The petitioner created
an equitable mortgage as against the above and the
repayment of the loan was to be carried out in 54 EMIs.
However, the petitioner only made payment of some amounts
in excess of Rs.2.10 crores, and the balance was not remitted.
The loan became NPA during 2014 and possession of the
property was taken on 19.02.2018 under the Statute. The
petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.40190 of 2018 and by an order dated 10.12.2018, an
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
amount of Rs.50 lakhs was directed to be paid as a condition
for stay, and the petitioner did not comply with the said
direction. Instead, W.A.No.203 of 2019 was filed against the
afore order of the learned Single Judge, which was withdrawn
subsequently. Later, an application was filed to modify the
interim order before the learned Single Judge and that also
met with no success. The further appeal filed against the
order of the learned Single Judge refusing modification, as
above, stood rejected on 29.01.2019. Later, the petitioner's
properties were proposed to be sold in exercise of the powers
under the Statute, fixing the reserve price at Rs.12.53 crores.
Since there were no bidders on the notified date
(26.10.2019), the reserve price was reduced to
Rs.915.42 lakhs and the property was notified for sale on
20.02.2021. Even after the proclamation for sale was
published in Malayala Manorama on 23.01.2021, there were
no bidders, and hence, an e-auction was conducted on
12.03.2021 and the properties sold to respondents 7 to 10 at
the request of the 11th respondent, who was the successful
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
bidder.
3. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition
seeking to quash Ext.P5 auction notice and the further
proceedings thereunder, as also Ext.P16 sale deed executed
in favour of respondents 7 to 10, as above.
4. The respondent corporation has filed a counter
affidavit seeking to sustain the impugned proceedings,
followed with a statement dated 12.03.2024.
5. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Dhanya Ashokan, learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 and
Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel, on
behalf of respondents 7 to 10.
6. Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, would submit that :-
(i) The auction sale conducted by the respondent
Corporation was without following the guidelines
prescribed/laid down by the Apex Court in the
judgment reported as Kerala Financial
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
Corporation v. Vincent Paul [2011 (2) KLT
286].
(ii) He would point out to Ext.P3 notice dated
17.12.2020 and the auction sale conducted on
12.03.2021 and contend that the upset price/
reserve price/place of the sale were not mentioned
anywhere in the afore documents.
(iii) He would rely on Ext.R4(d) notice dated
02.12.2020, by which the reserve price was refixed
at Rs.915.42 lakhs, Ext.R4I valuation report and
compare the same with Ext.P6 valuation produced
by the petitioner, prepared by an approved valuer.
He points out that the land value fixed as per
Ext.R4I was only Rs.16 lakhs per cent, and in
Ext.P6, the land value is Rs.1.25 crores per Are.
Similarly, for the building in the property, the value
shown in Ext.R4I was only 4.91 crores, whereas in
Ext.P6 it was Rs.7.19 crores.
(iv) He points out that at the auction sale, there were
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
only two bidders, and ultimately, the properties
were sold in favour of the 11th respondent - the
successful bidder and later, Ext.P16 sale deed was
executed in favour of respondents 7 to 10, being
the nominees of the 11th respondent. According to
him, respondents 7 to 10 form a cartel and this is
clear from the fact that the 9th respondent is the
son of Sri.Peethambaran, who was one among the
bidders in the e-auction.
(v) He would also point out that the petitioner is ready
to satisfy the entire arrears and also compensate
the purchasers of the property.
7. Smt.Dhanya Ashokan, the learned Senior Counsel
for the respondent Corporation would contend that:-
(i) The petitioner was extended all facilities to wipe
off the dues. In spite of the above, the petitioner
defaulted the repayment.
(ii) Even a One Time Settlement (OTS) was extended
on 28.10.2020, as evidenced by Ext.R4(h), and
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
that was not acted upon by the petitioner.
(ii) Though Ext.R4(d) notice fixing the reserved price
was served on the petitioner, no objections were
filed by it.
(iii) The period of 30 days fixed pursuant to the
judgment of the Apex Court was extended to the
petitioner as is clear from the various documents
produced along with the counter affidavit/
statement
(iv) Even the value of the property in question declared
by the petitioner themselves before the Registrar
of Companies was only Rs.9.72 crores, as seen
from Ext.R4(j).
(v) With regard to the alleged disparity in the
valuation, she relies on the fair value of the
property as per the Government records, which
was only Rs.4 lakhs per Are.
(vi) The sale was carried out after publishing the notice
in two newspapers, as seen from Exts.R4(k)
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
and (l), and was followed by the online
advertisement on the website dated 18.01.2021
as evidenced by R4(m).
(vii) She would also refer to the tabulated statement at
paragraph No.16 of the counter affidavit dated
28.05.2021 and would contend that the various
guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Kerala
Financial Corporation v. Vincent Paul [2011
(2) KLT 286] have been complied with. She relies
on the judgments of the Apex Court in
U.P.Financial Corporation v. M/s.Gem Cap
(India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC 299],
Chairman And Managing Director, Sipcot,
Madras & Ors. V. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. &
Another [(1995) 4 SCC 595], Haryana
Financial Corporation and Another v.
Jagadamba Oils Mills & Another [AIR 2002
(SC) 834] and Punjab Financial Corporation
v. M/s. Surya Auto Industries [(2010) 1 SCC
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
297] in support of her submissions.
8. Sri.Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel for
respondents 7 to 10, points out that:-
(i) The petitioner has filed various writ petitions
before this Court and in spite of indulgence shown
by this Court, the petitioner continued to be a
chronic defaulter.
(ii) He points out that there is no material irregularity
in the auction sale, and, therefore the writ court is
not to interfere.
(iii) He relies on R4(i) postal acknowledgment card to
show that the sale notice was served on the
petitioners.
(iv) As regards the advance obtained for the purchase
of the property by the assignees in Ext.P16
document, the EMI period is not over.
(v) With reference to the judgment of the Apex Court
in Kerala Financial Corporation v. Vincent Paul
[2011 (2) KLT 286], he points out that only a
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
civil suit is maintainable and not a writ petition.
9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as
the connected records.
10. Essentially the following questions arise for
consideration in this writ petition:
(i) Is the sale effected by the respondent corporation
in tune with the guidelines framed by the Apex
court in Kerala Financial Corporation v.
Vincent Paul [2011 (2) KLT 286]?
(ii) Is the petitioner entitled to contend that the
auction sale, in reality is, one effected in favour of
a cartel?
11. In Kerala Financial Corporation v. Vincent
Paul [2011 (2) KLT 286], the Apex Court had laid down
the following:-
"12. We have already concluded that the decree
for specific performance granted by the High Court
cannot be sustained. We also observed in the earlier
part of our judgment that though the KFC has
initiated proceedings under S.29 of the Act,
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
admittedly, the State has not framed Rules or
guidelines in the form of executive instructions for
safe of properties owned by them. Till such formation
of Rules or guidelines or orders as mentioned above,
we direct the KFC to adhere the following directions
for sale of properties owned by it:
(16) The decision/intention to bring the property for
sale shall be published by way of
advertisement in two leading newspapers, one
in vernacular language having sufficient
circulation in that locality.
(ii) Before conducting safe of immovable property,
the authority concerned shall obtain valuation of the
property from an approved valuer and in
consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve
price of the property and may sell the whole or any
part of such immovable secured asset by any of the
following methods:
(a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing
with similar secured assets or otherwise interested
in buying such assets; or
(b) by inviting tenders from the public; or
I by holding public auction; or
(d) by private treaty.
Among the above modes, inviting tenders from the
public or holding public auction is the best method
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
for disposal of the properties belonging to the State.
(iii) The authority concerned shall serve to the
borrower a notice of 30 days for sale of immovable
secured assets.
(iv) A highest bidder in public auction cannot have a
right to get the property or any privilege, unless the
authority confirms the auction sale, being fully
satisfied that the property has fetched the
appropriate price and there has been no collusion
between the bidders.
(v) In the matter of sale of public property, the
dominant consideration is to secure the best price for
the property to be sold. This can be achieved only
when there is maximum public participation in the
process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of
making an offer. It becomes a legal obligation on the
part of the authority that property be sold in such a
manner that it may fetch the best price.
(vi) The essential ingredients of sale are correct
valuation report and fixing the reserve price. In case
proper valuation has not been made and the reserve
price is fixed taking into consideration the inaccurate
valuation report, the intending buyers may not come
forward treating the property as not worth purchase
by them.
(vii) Reserve price means the price with which the
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
public auction starts and the auction bidders are not
permitted to give bids below the said price, i.e., the
minimum bid at auction.
(viii) The debtor should be given a reasonable
opportunity in regard to the valuation of the property
sought to be sold, in absence thereof the sale would
suffer from material irregularity where the debtor
suffer substantial injury by the sale."
The first contention raised by the petitioner Is with reference
to the above guidelines framed by the Apex Court.
12. The first guideline is as regards the publication of
an advertisement in two leading newspapers. As already
noticed, the advertisements were published in two
newspapers-Exts.R4(k) and (l) and also followed by the
online advertisement at Ext.R4(m). Therefore, there cannot
be any dispute as against the above guideline. The second
condition is with regard to the valuation of the property to be
obtained from an approved valuer in consultation with the
secured creditor and fixing the reserve price on that basis.
Here, Ext.R4I is the valuation report obtained from the
approved valuer. As per the said report the realisable value
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
was fixed at Rs.905 lakhs. The method to be adopted for
effecting sales can be by inviting tenders from the public. In
the case at hand, the respondent corporation has resorted to
that method. The third condition is that the notice is to be
served to the borrower granting 30 day period before
the proposed sale of the immovable property. Here, Ext.R4(d)
communication addressed to the petitioner was dated
02.12.2020 and they were also served on the petitioner and
the Directors, as seen from the acknowledgment card-
Ext.R4(i), on or around 22.12.2020. The sale is effected only
thereafter on 12.03.2021. The fourth guideline is with respect
to confirmation of the auction sale after the sale has fetched
the appropriate price. Here, the sale was notified on the basis
of the report of the valuer, and the value realised on account
of the sale was admittedly more than the reserve price fixed
as per the advertisement. Then, it has to be proved that there
has been no collusion between the bidders. Here there were
only two bidders. The 11th respondent had offered the highest
amount, and the said bid was accepted. It might be that,
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
later, the property in question was transferred at the request
of the 11th respondent in favour of respondents 7 to 10. In
this connection, the question of collusion between the bidders
arises only when the sale does not fetch the required price.
Admittedly, the price fetched at the time of auction is in
excess of the reserve price. Again, as per clause 7 of the
General Conditions of e-sale, the corporation was bound to
effect the transfer of the property by executing sale deeds to
the nominees of the successful bidder. The respondent
corporation has acted only on the basis of the request made
by the 11th respondent and that by itself cannot be a reason
to allege collusion between the bidders. The fifth guideline
laid down by the Apex Court is with reference to the need to
ensure maximum public participation in the process of sale.
Here, the e-auction has taken place after two earlier attempts
to sell the property pursuant to earlier notices. Therefore, it
is quite clear that the respondent corporation had made every
effort to ensure maximum public participation in the process
of sale. The next guideline is with reference to the fixation of
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
the reserve price on the basis of the valuation report and the
inaccuracy therein, if any. Here, as already noticed, the
reserve price is fixed pursuant to the valuation report. The
valuation report has referred to the price of the property in
question at Rs.16 lakhs per cent. The afore value appears to
be reasonable. The seventh guideline laid down by the Apex
Court is with reference to the bid offered at the time of
auction which is not to go below the minimum reserve price.
Here no such case exists. The last condition laid down by the
Apex Court is with reference to the opportunity to be
extended to the debtor as regards the valuation of the
property. Here, as already noticed, the valuation as well as
the reserve price was informed to the petitioner and there
was no response from their side. On the whole, the sale
effected by the respondent corporation appears to be one in
tune with the guidelines fixed by the Apex Court in the afore
judgment.
13. Now, the judgments relied on from the side of the
petitioner are to be referred to. The learned Senior Counsel
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
Sri.Sreekumar placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Union of India & Others v. Hindustan
Development Corporation & Others [(1993) 3 SCC
499], in support of his contention that the sale was carried
out in favour of a cartel. However, this court notices that
merely for the reason that the ultimate sale deed was
executed in favour of respondents 7 to 10 at the instance of
the 11th respondent, it cannot be said that there was a cartel
existing. This is especially so when the auction fetched value
in excess of the reserve price.
14. Further, the question as to whether in the case at
hand any challenge could be raised against the auction sale
effected, is to be considered with reference to the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in U.P.Financial Corporation
v. M/s.Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC
299], wherein the Apex Court held that the financial
corporations are not established merely for giving loans and
thereafter to go out of business. In paragraph No.10 of the
judgment, the Apex Court held as under:
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
"10. ..... The corporation is not supposed to give loans
once and go out of business. It has also to recover
them so that it can give fresh loans to others. The
Corporation no doubt has to act within the four
corners of the Act and in furtherance of the object
underlying the Act. But this factor cannot be carried
to the extent of obligating the Corporation to revive
and resurrect every sick industry irrespective of the
cost involved. Promoting industrialisation at the cost
of public funds does not serve the public interest; it
merely amounts to transferring public money to
private-account. The fairness required of the
Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of
disabling it from recovering what is due to it. While
not insisting upon the borrower to honour the
commitments undertaken by him, the Corporation
alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name
of fairness. Fairness is not a one way street, more
particularly in matters like the present one. The
above narration of facts shows that the respondents
have no intention of repaying any part of the debt.
They are merely putting forward one or other ploy to
keep the Corporation at bay. Approaching the Courts
through successive writ petitions is but a part of this
game. Another circumstance. These Corporations are
not sitting on King Solomon's mines. They too borrow
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
monies from Government or other financial
corporations. They too have to pay interest thereon.
The fairness required of it must be tempered nay,
determined, in the light of all these circumstances,
Indeed, in a matter between the Corporation and its
debtor, a writ court has no say except in two
situations: (1) there is a statutory violation on the
part of the Corporation or (2) where, the Corporation
acts unfairly i.e., unreasonably. While the former
does not present any difficulty, the latter needs a little
reiteration of its precise meaning. What does acting
unfairly or unreasonably mean? Does it mean that the
High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226
of the Constitution can sit, as an Appellate Authority
over the acts and deeds of the corporation and seek
to correct them? Surely, it cannot be. That is not the
function of the High Court under Art.226. Doctrine of
fairness, evolved in administrative law was not
supposed to convert the writ courts into appellate
authorities over administrative authorities. The
constraints, self imposed undoubtedly-of writ
jurisdiction still remain. Ignoring them would lead to
confusion" and uncertainty. The jurisdiction may
become rudderless."
15. To the same effect is the judgment in Chairman
And Managing Director, Sipcot, Madras & Ors. V.
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
Contromix Pvt. Ltd. & Another [(1995) 4 SCC 595],
wherein the Apex Court noticed the attempt made by the
creditor to extend loan facilities, including OTS, for settlement
of the dues and upon its failure in that attempt, procedure
taken for realisation of the defaulted sums through public
auction. Here also, it is seen that the maximum facility was
extended to the petitioner, and even thereafter, the petitioner
defaulted on the repayment. Further, in Punjab Financial
Corporation v. M/s. Surya Auto Industries [(2010) 1
SCC 297], the Apex Court has reiterated the afore principles.
16. In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that
the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. The respondent
corporation has effected sale of the properties in question
only in tune with the various guidelines laid down by the Apex
Court, as noticed above.
Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
Skk/05.11.2024
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.8708 OF 2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF THE FAIR
VALUE PUBLISHED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FINISHED SHOPPING COMPLEX
EXHIBIT P3 NOTICE DATED 17.12.2020 INITIMATING THAT
THE PETITIONER TOTAL DUES.
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2011(2)
KLT 286
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED
IN THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF VALUATION REPORT DTD
01-04-2021
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 01-04-2021
ISSUED TO 5TH RESPONDENT BY REGD. POST
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPTS DTD.
01-04-2021 FOR HAVING SEND EXHIBIT P7
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT DTD
03-04-2021 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF
POSTAL DEPT.
EXHIBIT P10 PRINTOUT OF EMAIL SENT ON 01-04-2021 TO THE
5TH RESPONDENT ATTACHING EXHIBIT P7
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY REPRESENTATION DTD. 08-04-2021
ISSUED TO 5TH RESPONDENT BY REGD. POST
EXHIBIT P12 TURE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DTD.
09-04-2021 FOR HAVING SEND EXHIBIT P.11
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT DTD.
10-04-2021 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF
POSTAL DEPT.
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
EXHIBIT P14 PRINTOUT OF EMAIL SENT ON 09-04-2021 TO THE
5TH RESPONDENT ATTACHING EXHIBIT.P11
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY BRANCH HEAD
OF
IDBI BANK, KOZHIKODE BRANCH TO THE
PETITIONER DTD 17-04-2021
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.605/1/2021 OF
CHALAPPURAM, SUB REGISTRY DTD 13-04-2021
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION
COMMUNICATION DT.06.11.2013.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.1/2018 IN
WP(C)NO.40190/2018(W) DATED 18.01.2019
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DT 29/01/2019 IN
EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.12.2020
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT
DT.16.11.2020
EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER
RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNERS OF HOTEL
MEDALLION DATED 29.04.2021.
EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF FIR DATED 25/5/2021 FILED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28/10/2020
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED
22/12/2020 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R4(J) TRUE DOWNLOADED COPY OF THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-2019
UPLOADED BY THE COMPANY IN THE PORTAL OF
MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS
WP(C) NO. 8708 OF 2021 2024:KER:83771
TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTIFICATION
EXHIBIT R4(K)
PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DATED 23/01/2021
TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTIFICATION
EXHIBIT R4(L) PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DATED
23/01/2021
TRUE COPY OF THE E-AUCTION NOTIFICATION
EXHIBIT R4(M) DATED 18/01/2121 PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE
OF THE CORPORATION
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2021 IN
EXHIBITR4(N)
WP(C) 11597/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/10/2021
EXHIBIT R4(O)
EXHIBIT R4(P) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/10/2021
