No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:86523
“C.R.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
TUESDAY, THE 19
TH
DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 M/S VASU COCO RESORTS PVT.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY IT’S DIRECTOR , MR. PRASHANTH VASUDEVAN ,V P II/326BM,
VAYALAR, CHERTALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688536
2 MR .PRASHANTH VASUDEVAN,
S/O DR.P. VASUDEVAN,HOUSE NO.223, GAUTHAM BUDDHA NAGAR,NEAR 15A CLUB,
SECTOR 15A,NOIDA,UTTAR PRADESH, PIN - 201303
BY ADVS. SR. ADV V MOHANA
PRAVEEN K. JOY
T.A.JOY
E.S.SANEEJ
M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
N.ABHILASH
DEEPU RAJAGOPAL
ALBIN VARGHESE
ARDRA ANIL
FATHIMA SHALU S.
ABISHA.E.R
MEGHA G.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH,1127, RAJA PLAZA,
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:86523
AVINASHI ROAD, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641037
2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH,7TH FLOOR,
VANAKARATH TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM, PIN - 682024
3 M/S EVERSPACE REALTY LLP,
NO.22, RAJARAM METHA NAGAR ,AMINJIKARAI, CHENNAI TAMIL NADUREP BY
PARTNER, PIN - 600029
BY ADVS. SR ADV P L NARAYANAN FOR R3; SR ADV K JAJU BABU FOR R1 AND R2
TOM K.THOMAS
K.I.SAGEER
BINI DAS
NADEEM NAZAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
3
2024:KER:86523
JUDGMENT
“C.R.”
Heard Ms V Mohana, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr
Praveen K Joy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr K Jaju Babu,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Tom K Thomas, learned Counsel
for R1 and R2 and Mr P L Narayanan learned Senior Counsel for R3.
Facts:
2. The first petitioner, a private limited Company, runs a resort
at Cherthala, Alleppey under the name and style “Vasundhara Resorts”.
The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first respondent
Company. The petitioners had availed credit facilities to the tune of
Rs.53 crores from the first respondent Bank for the construction of a
five-star resort. The said loan was secured by creating an equitable
mortgage of certain immovable properties and hypothecation of the
movable properties. The primary security comprised 6.60 Ares of land
with resort building and superstructure. Fourteen agricultural lands
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
4
2024:KER:86523
were offered as collateral security to secure the aforesaid loan. It is
stated that as a result of the Nipah Virus, Kerala floods and COVID-19,
the resort business faced huge hardship as the tourism business itself
was down to a great extent. The petitioners failed to discharge the
liability in terms of the loan agreement. Therefore, the Bank classified
the loan account of the petitioners as NPA and proceeded with the
SARFAESI measures under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the
Rules made thereunder.
3. The petitioners filed a Securitization Application, S.A.
No.530/2022 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 20.08.2022,
initially challenging the possession notice dated 06.07.2022 issued by the
respondent Bank and later amended the S.A. to challenge the two sale
notices dated 15.09.2022 and 29.10.2022. The petitioners also challenged
the Advocate Commissioner's notice dated 28.11.2022 for taking
possession of the secured assets. After the sale of the secured assets, the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
5
2024:KER:86523
petitioners amended the Securitization Application to challenge the sale
confirmation advice dated 26.12.2022 in favour of the third respondent.
4. Initially the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order of status
quo dated 30.11.2022. It was further directed that sale confirmation be
deferred if the sale was held on the same day on 30.11.2022. The Debts
Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application on
07.07.2023. The respondent Bank issued two separate sale certificates in
respect of the movables and immovables on 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023
respectively. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the decision in
S.A. was unsuccessful and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT)
dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and upheld the order passed by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal vide final order dated 12.06.2024.
5. The petitioners, thereafter, filed the present writ petition
challenging the final order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
However, this Court refused to grant any interim protection in respect
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
6
2024:KER:86523
of the possession of the secured asset. Against the refusal to grant any
interim protection, the petitioners filed W.A. No.910/2024 before the
Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ
Appeal vide order dated 05.07.2024. After the dismissal of the Writ
Appeal, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP(C)
No.14273/2024. The Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 directed
the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30 crores with the Bank by
25.07.2024 to show their bona fides and left it to this Court to decide the
timeframe for making further deposit of a sum of Rs.20 crores by the
petitioners. The order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in
SLP (C) No.14273/2024 reads as under:
“1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at the outset and on
instructions, states that the petitioners shall deposit not less than 30
crores within two weeks i.e., on or before 25.07.2024. She further states
that soon thereafter the petitioners will deposit another 20 crores within
a reasonable time as may be fixed by the High Court in the pending writ
proceedings.
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
7
2024:KER:86523
Though learned counsel for the Bank, who is on caveat, vehemently
opposes the indulgence sought by the petitioners, we in the interest of
justice and as a last opportunity permit the petitioners to show their bona
fide and deposit a sum of not less than 30 crores with the bank, without
prejudice to their rights, by 25.07.2024. Till such time, the parties shall
maintain status quo re: possession or creation of third party rights.
However, if the petitioners fail to abide by their statement or the
directions given above, the order of status quo shall be deemed to have
been vacated with effect from 26.07.2024. Once the order of interim
protection is deemed to have been vacated, necessary consequences will
follow.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
4. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
6. In compliance with the order passed by the Supreme Court,
the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.30 crores on 22.07.2024. This
Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 (modified on 29.07.2024), directed the
petitioners to pay a further sum of Rs.20 crores on or before 20.09.2024.
The petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 20 crores in compliance with
the aforesaid order passed by this Court. Thus, the petitioners have
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
8
2024:KER:86523
deposited a sum of Rs.50 crores during the pendency of the present writ
petition.
Petitioners’ submission:
7. Ms V Mohana learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners,
assisted by Mr Praveen K Joy learned Counsel, has primarily made the
following submissions in support of the petitioners’ case.
7.1 Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules 2002 mandate that, before putting the secured assets for sale, the
value of the movables and the immovables are required to be estimated.
The purpose and intent of the Act and the Rules is to fetch the best and
maximum price for the secured asset. The Rules contemplate the
valuation of movable and immovable assets separately. The reserve
price is to be fixed based on proper valuation obtained from an approved
valuer. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended
that there has been no separate valuation of six items of immovable
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
9
2024:KER:86523
properties also. She has placed reliance on the judgment in Ram Kishun
v. State of Uttar Pradesh
1
and J Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas
2
.
7.2 The sale notice dated 29.10.2022 would disclose a reserve
price of Rs.42.30 crores collectively only for the immovable properties.
There is no mention of the movable properties. However, a separate sale
certificate dated 10.07.2023 was issued in respect of movable properties,
giving a long list of numerous movable items, including houseboats and
other boats. Another sale certificate was issued on 12.07.2023 in respect
of the immovable properties. According to the sale certificates, the
movable assets were sold for a consideration of Rs.2.40 crores and the
immovable assets were sold for a consideration of Rs.39.91 crores. There
is nothing on record to suggest that any reserve price was fixed
separately for movables and immovables after carrying out the due
valuation as contemplated under the Rules. The submission is that there
1
(2012) 11 SCC 511
2
(2014) 5 SCC 651
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
10
2024:KER:86523
has been a complete violation of Rules 6 and 8, which mandate that the
sale notice must mention the reserve price of the secured assets, which
should be fixed after obtaining a valuation report from an approved
valuer as provided under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules 2002.
7.2.1 It is further submitted that under Rules 5 to 9 of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, a separate procedure for the
sale of movable and immovable secured assets of the borrower is
prescribed. Rule 6 deals with the sale of movable assets and sets out that
the Bank must elaborate the complete description of all movable assets
that are to be sold along with proper identification mark and a separate
reserve price must be mentioned in respect thereof. No reserve price in
respect of movable assets was fixed, and the movable assets were not
separately enumerated in the sale notice dated 29.10.2022. An arbitrary
value was unilaterally and unreasonably fixed with respect to movable
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
11
2024:KER:86523
and immovable assets after conducting the sale at the time of issuing
separate sale certificates in favour of the third respondent by the Bank.
Thus, the whole procedure and the requirements of the Rules got flouted
and violated by the Bank to the detriment of the borrower, the
petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission, has
placed reliance on Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd v. Andhra Bank
3
.
7.2.3 The movable assets could not have been treated as part
and parcel of the immovable property which is evident from the
separate sale certificate issued in respect of the movables. It is well
settled that unless the movables in the property and around the
property are attached to earth with an intention to make it permanent,
these items of movables cannot be termed as immovable property, as
held in Dasa Bikshamaiah v. Authorised Officer
4
.
7.3 It is also contended that the immovable assets were sold
3
2020 SCC OnLine TS 81
4
2020 SCC OnLine TS 1658
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
12
2024:KER:86523
below the reserve price in violation of Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules 2002 which mandates that the sale of the secured
immovable asset shall not be confirmed if the price offered is less than
the reserve price fixed as per Rule 8(5) of the said Rules. If the
authorized officer is unable to obtain a higher price, such a sale may be
effected only with the consent of the borrower. In the sale notice dated
29.10.2022, the reserve price of the immovables was fixed as Rs.42.30
crore. However, according to the sale certificate dated 12.07.2023, the
immovables were sold for a consideration of Rs.39.91 crores to the 3
rd
respondent, the auction purchaser, without obtaining the consent of the
petitioners to effect the sale below the reserve price.
7.4 It is also submitted that the Bank had auctioned the property,
which included a parcel of land to the extent of 2.02 Ares in Survey
No.11/2 of the Vayalar Village, one of the six contiguous plots on which
the resort is built. The said parcel of land has already been transferred
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
13
2024:KER:86523
to the Vayalar Village Panchayat vide Assignment Deed bearing
Registration No.1958 of 2016. As the said land was included in the sale
notices, the Panchayat filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.36310/2023
seeking a writ of mandamus to keep the said parcel of land outside the
scope of the sale. This Court, vide judgment dated 15.03.2024, disposed
of Panchayat’s petition on the basis of the Bank’s submission that the
Bank had no claim whatsoever over the said land. The Panchayat filed
W.A. No.489/2024 before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench of
this Court, vide its judgment dated 11.04.2024, declared that the
aforesaid parcel of land belonged to the Panchayat, and it stood excluded
from all securitization proceedings and measures initiated by the Bank.
The submission is that the sales notice itself was defective. Therefore,
the subsequent proceedings of conducting the sale and issuing the sale
certificate would also be defective and the entire procedure would be
liable to be set aside.
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
14
2024:KER:86523
7.5 It is further submitted that the auction purchaser is not a bona
fide purchaser. When the Bank initiated the securitization measures, the
auction purchaser approached the petitioners on 10.10.2022 with the
intention to purchase the resort and offered a sum of Rs.45.30 crores.
The auction purchaser was also a joint proposer of a One-time
Settlement proposal submitted to the Bank. However, during the
settlement talks between the petitioners and the Bank, the auction
purchaser came to know about the proposed auction sale, and he
withdrew his offer for a sum of Rs.45.30 crores and participated in the
auction behind the petitioners’ back. He was declared a successful
bidder and purchased the secured assets in the auction. The auction
purchaser had all along been aware of the negotiations between the
petitioners and the Bank and the dire need of the petitioners to settle
the loan liability with the Bank. The auction purchaser, knowing all
these facts, had participated in auction proceedings and was successful
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
15
2024:KER:86523
at an amount less than the reserve price and much below the price
offered by himself, i.e., Rs.45.30 crores. It is, therefore, submitted that
the auction purchaser conducted himself with unclean hands and had
offered the price below the reserve price and much below the offer made
by himself for Rs.45.30 crores in connivance with the bank officials.
Therefore, the whole process of the sale of the secured assets and
movables has been vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
Submissions of the 1
st
and 2
nd
respondents:
8. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has
submitted that the loan account of the petitioners became a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) in the year 2013. A demand notice under Section
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioners to pay a sum of
Rs.55,02,30,564/-. A second notice of demand was issued on 18.08.2020
to pay a sum of Rs.72,13,29,826.37 within sixty days. In pursuance of the
One-time Settlement Scheme offered by the Bank on 22.10.2020 for a sum
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
16
2024:KER:86523
of Rs.38,04,89,903.25, the petitioners paid only Rs.1.92 crores. Therefore,
the said One-time settlement offer lapsed due to non-payment of the
remaining amount by the petitioners. In view thereof, a third notice of
demand notice dated 07.12.2021 was issued under Section 13(2) claiming
a sum of Rs.82,76,71,281.45. Again on 27.01.2022, the Bank gave a One-
time Settlement proposal as per the SBI OTS Scheme 2021 to the
petitioners to settle the liability by paying an amount of Rs.44.50 crores.
However, the petitioners did not come forward to settle the dues even
as per the second One-time Settlement Scheme.
8.1 It was only on 06.04.2022 that the petitioners came forward
with an offer for settlement of the dues and paid Rs.1.50 crores to the
Bank’s No Lien Account and sought time till 21.04.2022 for submission of
a firm compromise proposal. Thereafter, they sought time till 30.06.2022
to submit the proposal. However, the petitioners failed to submit any
firm proposal/ compromise offer. In the meantime, on 26.03.2022, the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
17
2024:KER:86523
petitioners entered into an agreement with M/s Zaahrah Hotels and
Resorts Pvt. Ltd to sell the resort. Ultimately, the Bank issued a
possession notice on 06.07.2022 claiming Rs.88,67,45,965/-. Thereafter,
the petitioners filed S.A. No.530/2022 before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-II Ernakulam. The petitioners also filed W.P.(C) No.34125/2022
seeking to extend the One-time Settlement proposal given on 02.11.2022.
However, the said writ petition came to be dismissed holding that the
petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.
8.2 The properties were sold to the 3
rd
respondent in an e-auction
on 30.11.2022 for Rs.42.31 crores. The Debts Recovery Tribunal
dismissed S.A. No.530/2022 against which the petitioner filed the appeal
before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 12.06.2024. Challenging the
said decision of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the present writ
petition has been filed.
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
18
2024:KER:86523
8.3 It is submitted that the Bank obtained the valuation report for
the secured asset from the approved valuer and produced it before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal. The said valuation report was not challenged
by the petitioners. The petitioner had issued a letter dated 22.11.2022
stating that a third person was ready to purchase the property for
Rs.40.50 crores and comparing the bid offered by the 3
rd
respondent for
an amount of Rs.42.31 crores, the amount offered by the 3
rd
respondent
was more than the price of Rs.40.50 crores for which the petitioner was
willing to sell the property in question. The 3
rd
respondent deposited
the entire bid amount on 10.07.2023 and the sale certificate for movable
and immovable properties was issued on 10.07.2023 and 12.07.2023.
8.4 The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits
that the petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.14273/2024
before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench
judgment dated 05.07.2024 in W.A. No.910/2024 against the denial of the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
19
2024:KER:86523
interim order by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The
only question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the
possession of the secured asset was to be taken during the pendency of
the writ petition, and therefore, the Supreme Court passed the order for
making a deposit of Rs.30 crores and subject to making a deposit of Rs.30
crores, it was directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed
from the secured asset during the pendency of the writ petition. The
question regarding the validity of the sale in favour of the 3
rd
respondent
was not the subject matter of the judgment of the Division Bench or the
Supreme Court. It is submitted that there is no illegality committed in
conducting the sale. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as there is no error on facts or law committed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the orders
impugned in the present writ petition.
8.5 The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Supreme
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
20
2024:KER:86523
Court in Celir LLP v. Bhafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd
5
has held that the
borrower's failure to tender the entire dues before the publication of
auction notice under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would disentitle
the borrower to challenge the auction. The 3
rd
respondent was declared
a successful bidder as he offered a higher bid; the auction is not required
to be interfered with. The petitioner has not come forward to tender the
entire dues after publication of notice under Section 13(8) of the
SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8.6 Furthermore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that once
the Bank declined to consider the fresh proposal for a One-time
Settlement and against the said decision of the Bank, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34125/2022 got dismissed, there is
no occasion for the Bank to consider a fresh proposal of One-time
Settlement. It is also submitted that the One-time Settlement proposal
5
(2024) 2 SCC 1
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
21
2024:KER:86523
submitted by the petitioner dated 03.08.2024, after the judgment of the
Supreme Court has been placed before the appropriate Committee for
decision along with the Branch’s recommendation only in respect of the
remaining dues after adjusting the sales consideration of Rs.42.30 crores
and for the release of the remaining six property and not the resort
property.
Submission of the 3
rd
respondent:
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the 3
rd
respondent/ auction
purchaser has submitted that the petitioners failed to deposit the entire
dues after the publication of the notice, so the provisions Section 13(8)
stare at the face of the petitioners. He further submits that the 3
rd
respondent offered Rs.45.30 crore, but when the deal did not go through,
he participated in the auction proceedings and offered the price of
Rs.39.31 crore and Rs.2.40 crore, totalling Rs.41.71 crore, as the entire
sale consideration. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
22
2024:KER:86523
provisions of Section 13(8), the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Discussion and Analysis:
10. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
parties and perused the record.
11. The following questions need to be considered in the present
writ petition:
(I) Whether there has been a violation of Rules 5, 6, 7, 8(5) and 9 of
the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 in conducting the
auction sale of the secured asset by the Bank on 30.11.2022 in
favour of the 3
rd
respondent?
(II) Whether the auction sale, in favour of the 3
rd
respondent, is liable
to be set aside, as the auction sale has been confirmed below the
reserve price?
(III) Whether the 3
rd
respondent is a bona fide purchaser as he himself
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
23
2024:KER:86523
has written to the petitioners to purchase the resort for Rs.45.30
crores and he was a joint proposer of a One-time Settlement
proposal submitted to the Bank?
(IV) Whether Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would stare at the face
of the petitioner to challenge the auction proceedings on any
ground?
12. Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act provides for the enforcement
of Security Interests. A secured creditor can avert the sale of the secured
asset by tendering the dues to the secured creditor together with all
costs, charges and expenses incurred at any time before the date of
publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tenders
for the sale of the secured asset.
12.1 Sub-section (8) of Section 13 reads as under:
“(8) Where the amount of dues of the secured creditor together with all
costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered to the secured
creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
24
2024:KER:86523
auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for
transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets,—
(i) the secured assets shall not be transferred by way of lease
assignment or sale by the secured creditor; and
(ii) in case, any step has been taken by the secured creditor for transfer
by way of lease or assignment or sale of the assets before tendering
of such amount under this sub-section, no further step shall be
taken by such secured creditor for transfer by way of lease or
assignment or sale of such secured assets.”
13. The mode and manner in which the sale of the secured asset
is to be conducted has been provided in the provisions of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. Before putting the secured asset on
sale, the valuation of movable and immovable assets is required to be
obtained. Rules 5 and 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002
are in respect of the valuation and sale of movable secured assets. While
Rule 8 is in respect of the sale of immovable secured assets.
14. Rules 5 and 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules
2002, which are in respect of the valuation and sale of the movable
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
25
2024:KER:86523
secured assets would read as under:
“5. Valuation of movable secured assets.-
After taking possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 and in any case before
sale, the authorised officer shall obtain the estimated value of the
movable secured assets and thereafter, if considered necessary, fix in
consultation with the secured creditor, the reserve price of the assets to
he sold in realisation of the dues of the secured creditor.
6. Sale of movable secured assets.-
(1) the authorised officer may sell the moveable secured assets taken
possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting
any of the following methods to secure the maximum sale price for the
assets, to be so sold-
(a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or
otherwise interested in buying such assets; or
(b) inviting tenders from the public; or
(c) holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or
(d) by private treaty.
(2) The authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty
days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1):
PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured assets is being effected by
either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the
secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
26
2024:KER:86523
Appendix II-A to be published in two leading newspapers, including one
in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality.
PROVIDED FURTHER that if the sale of movable property by any one of
the methods specified under sub-rule (1) fails and the sale is required to
be conducted again, the authorised officer shall serve, affix and publish
notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower for any
subsequent sale.
(3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall
be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the
proposed purchaser.
(4) The authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions
of the sale of the movable secured assets on the website of the secured
creditor, which shall include,
(a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor;
(b) a complete description of movable secured assets to be sold with
identification marks or numbers, if any, on them;
(c) reserve price of the movable secured assets, if any, and the time and
manner of payment;
(d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any
other mode shall be completed;
(e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor;
(f) any other terms or conditions which the authorised officer considers
it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of movable
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
27
2024:KER:86523
secured assets.”
14.1 From the reading of the Rules, it is evident that before the sale
of the movable secured asset is conducted, it is mandatory for the
authorized officer to obtain the estimated value of the movable secured
assets and thereafter, if it is considered necessary, fix in consultation
with the secured creditor, the reserve price of the assets to be sold in the
realization of the dues of the secured creditor. Though Rule 5 does not
lay down how the authorized officer is required to obtain the estimated
value of the movable secured assets unlike in the case of immovable
property, however, it is mandatory for the authorized officer that he
should obtain the estimated value of the movable secured assets before
putting them on sale in realization of the dues of the secured creditor.
14.2 As per Rule 6, a separate procedure has been prescribed for
the sale of movable secured assets. The value of the secured asset is fixed
after the authorized officer obtains the valuation in consultation with
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
28
2024:KER:86523
the secured creditor. Rule 6 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules
2002 reads as under:
“6. Sale of movable secured assets.-
(1) the authorised officer may sell the moveable secured assets taken
possession under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 in one or more lots by adopting
any of the following methods to secure maximum sale price for the
assets, to be so sold-
(a) obtaining quotations from parties dealing in the secured assets or
otherwise interested in buying such assets; or
(b) inviting tenders from the public; or
(c) holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or
(d) by private treaty.
(2) The authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty
days for sale of the movable secured assets, under sub-rule (1):
PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured assets is being effected by
either inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the
secured creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in
Appendix II-A to be published in two leading newspapers, including one
in vernacular language having wide circulation in the locality.
PROVIDED FURTHER that if the sale of movable property by any one of
the methods specified under sub-rule (1) fails and the sale is required to
be conducted again, the authorised officer shall serve, affix and publish
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
29
2024:KER:86523
notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower for any
subsequent sale.
(3) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall
be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the
proposed purchaser.
(4) The authorised officer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions
of the sale of the movable secured assets on the website of the secured
creditor, which shall include,
(a) details about the borrower and the secured creditor;
(b) a complete description of movable secured assets to be sold with
identification marks or numbers, if any, on them;
(c) reserve price of the movable secured assets, if any, and the time and
manner of payment;
(d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any
other mode shall be completed;
(e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor;
(f) any other terms or conditions which the authorised officer considers
it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value of movable
secured assets.”
14.3 The purpose of providing an elaborate procedure for selling
the secured assets is to secure the maximum sale price for the assets to
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
30
2024:KER:86523
be sold. Sub-Rule (2) mandates that the authorized officer serve the
borrower with a thirty-day notice for the sale of the movable secured
assets. The notice will also be published in two leading newspapers,
including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the
locality. The authorized officer is also required to upload the detailed
terms and conditions of the sale of the movable secured assets on the
website of the secured creditor, which would include a complete
description of movable secured assets to be sold with identification
marks or numbers, the reserved price of the movable secured assets,
time and place for public auction, and deposit of earnest money etc.
14.4 After completing the aforesaid procedure as mandated under
the law, the sale certificate is required to be issued in respect of the
movable assets to the successful party under Rule 7, which reads as
under:
“7. Issue of certificate of sale.-
(1) Where movable secured assets is sold, sale price of each lot shall be
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
31
2024:KER:86523
paid as per the terms of the public notice or on the terms as may be
settled between the parties, as the case may be, and in the event of default
of payment, the movable secured assets shall be liable to be offered for
sale again.
(2) On payment of sale price, the authorised officer shall issue a
certificate of sale in the prescribe form Appendix III to these rules
specifying the movable secured assets sold, price paid and the name of
the purchaser and thereafter the sale shall become absolute. The
certificate of sale so issued shall be prima facie evidence of title of
the purchaser.
(3) Where the movable secured assets are those referred in sub-clauses
(iii) to (v) of clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act, the
provisions contained in these rules and rule 7 dealing with the sale of
movable secured assets shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such assets.”
14.5 The Rules contemplate separate procedures for the sale of the
immovable secured asset, particularly Rules 8 and 9 of Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules 2002, which would read as under:
“8. Sale of immovable secured assets.-
(1) Where the secured asset is an immovable property, the authorised
officer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
32
2024:KER:86523
possession notice prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to these
rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the outer
door or at such conspicuous place of the property.
(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be
published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days
from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspaper one in
vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the
authorised officer.
(2A) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower
through electronic mode of service, in addition to the modes prescribed
under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of rule 8.
(3) In the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by
the authorised officer, such property shall be kept in his own custody or
in the custody of any person authorised or appointed by him, who shall
take as much care of the property in his custody as a owner of ordinary
prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of such property.
(4) The authorised officer shall take steps for preservation and protection
of secured assets and insure them, if necessary, till they are sold or
otherwise disposed of.
(5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-
rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer 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
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
33
2024:KER:86523
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 the such assets; or
(b) by inviting tenders from the public;
(c) by holding public auction including through e-auction mode; or]
(d) by private treaty.
PROVIDED that in case of sale of immovable property in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir, the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Transfer
of Property Act, 1977 shall apply to the person who acquires such
property in the State.
(6) the authorised officer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty
days for the sale of the immovable secured assets, under sub-rule (5):
PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured asset is being effected by either
inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction, the secured
creditor shall cause a public notice in the Form given in Appendix IV-A
to be published in two leading newspapers including one in vernacular
language having wide circulation in the locality.
(7) every notice of sale shall be affixed on the conspicuous part of the
immovable property and the authorised officer shall upload the detailed
terms and conditions of the sale, on the website of the secured creditor,
which shall include;
(a) the description of the immovable property to be sold, including the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
34
2024:KER:86523
details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor;
(b) the secured debt for recovery of which the property is to be sold;
(c) reserve price of the immovable secured assets below which the
property may not be sold;
(d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any
other mode shall be completed;
(e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured
creditor;
(f) any other terms and conditions, which the authorized officer
considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature and value
of the property.
(8) Sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall
be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditors and the
proposed purchaser in writing.
9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession,
etc.-
(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance
shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which
the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the
proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the
borrower:
PROVIDED FURTHER that if sale of immovable property by any one of the
methods specified by sub-rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
35
2024:KER:86523
conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish
notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any
subsequent sale.
(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered
the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the
authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured
creditor:
PROVIDED that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount
offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-
rule (5) of rule 8:
PROVIDED FURTHER that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price
higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower
and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.
(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall
immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as
the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of
the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to
the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit,
the property shall be sold again;
(4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the
purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of
confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended
period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
36
2024:KER:86523
secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months.
(5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the
deposit shall be forfeited to the secured creditor and the property shall
be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the
property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.
(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of
payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the
power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property
in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules.
(7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances,
the authorised officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit
with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any
interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be
sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and
interest as may be determined by him.
PROVIDED that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and
contingencies there is any surplus available out of money deposited by
the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen
day, from date of finalisation of the sale.
(8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the
authorised officer shall issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to
the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him
and take steps to make, the payment accordingly.
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
37
2024:KER:86523
(9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free
from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money
as specified in sub-rule (7) above.
(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically
mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable
secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor
or not.”
14.6 Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules 2002 provides for obtaining the valuation of the property from an
approved valuer by the authorized officer. Thereafter, fixing the reserve
price in consultation with the secured creditor which may be sold as a
whole or in part towards the satisfaction of the outstanding liability
against the borrower. Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 8 of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 prescribes that the property should
not be sold below the reserve price fixed under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 8 of
the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.
15. From the facts stated above, it is evident that no separate
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
38
2024:KER:86523
valuation of the movable and immovable property was obtained by the
authorized officer and no reserve price separately was fixed for movable
and immovable assets. It is also relevant to note here that the reserve
price was fixed at Rs.42.30 crores. However, the sale has been confirmed
for Rs.41.71 crores, below the reserve price.
M/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v. Andhra Bank [supra[
16. The authorized officer is required to act strictly in accordance
with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. The language
employed in the Rules is in the nature of commanding the authorized
officer. Therefore, any infraction of the Rules would be detrimental to
the whole exercise of disposing of the secured asset for realizing the
outstanding dues of the secured creditor. The question of whether it was
proper for the Bank/ secured creditor not to separately value the
machinery in the immovable property when it obtained the valuation
before the property was sold in favour of the auction purchaser came
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
39
2024:KER:86523
into consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court of
Telangana at Hyderabad in M/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (supra).
16.1 The question framed to be answered in the above judgment
would read as under:
“Whether it was proper for the 1
st
respondent Bank not to
separately value the machinery in the subject property when it
obtained the valuation before it sold the property to the 2
nd
respondent?”
16.2 After considering the relevant provisions of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the Division Bench set aside the sale
of the movable and immovable items based on the valuation report for
obtaining the valuation of both the items together as contrary to Rules
5, 6 and 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. The secured
asset cannot be dealt with in any manner and such an asset can only be
disposed of in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
40
2024:KER:86523
Rules contemplate the process to ensure that the secured assets are sold
to fetch maximum benefit to the borrowers. If the Bank or the
authorized officer act in contravention of the mandatory provisions in
conducting the sale, it would mean that he has acted in breach of the
trust and against the interest of the borrower and such a sale could be
illegal.
Ram Kishun v. State of Uttar Pradesh [supra]
17. The Supreme Court in Ram Kishun held that the public money
should be recovered, and recovery should be made expeditiously.
However, it does not mean that financial institutions should be
concerned only with the recovery of their loan and cannot be permitted
to behave like property dealers. Neither can they be permitted to
dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner
in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions.
17.1 The Supreme Court emphasized that the recovery of public
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
41
2024:KER:86523
dues must be made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed
in the law. The right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as
a human right and a person cannot be deprived of his property except
in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. Therefore, the
condition precedent for taking away someone’s property or disposing of
the secured assets must be in strict compliance with the statutory
provisions.
17.2 It has been further observed in the said judgment that the
relevant provisions of the Statute and the Rules require a proper
valuation report, its acceptance by the authority concerned by
application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly.
17.3 Paragraphs 13, 14, 22, 24 and 28, which are relevant are
extracted hereunder:
“13. Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery
should be made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the financial
institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans,
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
42
2024:KER:86523
may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted
further to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary
manner in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions.
14. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human
right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance
with the provisions of a statute. (Vide Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram and State
of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan) Thus, the condition precedent for
taking away someone's property or disposing of the secured assets, is
that the authority must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions.
*** *** ***
22. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an application of
mind by the authority concerned while approving/accepting the report
of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve price, as the failure to do
so may cause substantial injury to the borrower/guarantor and that
would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the
subsequent proceedings.
*** *** ***
24. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a proper
valuation report, its acceptance by the authority concerned by
application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly and
acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was no
possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty-bound to
decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
43
2024:KER:86523
outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the
property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably.
*** *** ***
28. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the
recovery of the public dues must be made strictly in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law. The liability of a surety is coextensive with
that of the principal debtor. In case there are more than one surety the
liability is to be divided equally among the sureties for unpaid amount of
loan. Once the sale has been confirmed it cannot be set aside unless a
fundamental procedural error has occurred or sale certificate had been
obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.”
J Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas [supra]
18. A similar view has been taken in paragraph 18 of this
judgment, which reads as under:
“18. It must be emphasised that generally proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the borrowers are initiated only when the
borrower is in dire straits. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and
the 2002 Rules have been enacted to ensure that the secured asset is not
sold for a song. It is expected that all the banks and financial institutions
which resort to the extreme measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
44
2024:KER:86523
sale of the secured assets to ensure that such sale of the asset provides
maximum benefit to the borrower by the sale of such asset. Therefore,
the secured creditors are expected to take bona fide measures to ensure
that there is maximum yield from such secured assets for the borrowers.
In the present case, Mr Dhruv Mehta has pointed out that sale
consideration is only Rs 10,000 over the reserve price whereas the
property was worth much more. It is not necessary for us to go into this
question as, in our opinion, the sale is null and void being in violation of
the provision of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules 8 and 9
of the 2002 Rules.”
19. It may be noted that the appeal filed against the judgment in
the case of Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd was allowed by the Supreme
Court in Arce Polymers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
6
However, it was allowed in light of the facts of the case, noticing that the
movables and immovables had been separately valued in accordance
with the law.
Celir LLP v. Bhafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd
6
(2022) 2 SCC 221
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
45
2024:KER:86523
20. The judgment in Celir LLP, relied on by the auction purchaser,
is required to be read considering the facts of that case. The High Court
in the aforesaid case had allowed the borrower to exercise his right of
redemption of mortgage under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act after
the confirmation of the auction sale in favour of the auction purchaser
and the Supreme Court explained that the borrower’s right of
redemption under Section 13(8) stands extinguished after the sale of the
secured assets takes place.
21. The 3
rd
respondent had written to the petitioner to purchase
the resort for Rs.45.30 crores and he was a joint proposer of the One-time
Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner to the Bank. After
submitting the proposal for a One-time Settlement, the 3
rd
respondent,
the auction purchaser himself participated in the auction proceedings
behind the back of the petitioners and was the successful bidder for the
price of Rs.41.71 crores, which is below the price of Rs.45.30 crores
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
46
2024:KER:86523
offered by him and below the reserve price itself. In the aforesaid facts,
when the 3
rd
respondent himself was negotiating and offered the higher
price for purchasing the property through a private sale, and he knew
about all the facts, he cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser.
21.1 If the auction itself has been in infraction of the Rules and
mandate of the law, Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act would not stare at
the face of the petitioner to challenge the auction proceedings, as there
has been a violation of the law.
Result:
22. In view thereof, the questions framed to be considered by this
Court are answered in favour of the petitioners. The present writ
petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned order in Exts. P5 to P9, P11 and P35 are set aside.
(ii) The petitioner has paid Rs.50 crores in pursuance of the orders
passed by the Supreme Court and this Court.
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
47
2024:KER:86523
(iii) The Bank should refund the amount deposited by the 3
rd
respondent with applicable interest within a period of one month
from today.
(iv) The petitioner should negotiate with the Bank for the discharge
of their remaining liability in respect of the outstanding dues of
the Bank.
The present writ petition is allowed. All Interlocutory Applications
regarding interim matters stand closed.
Sd/-
D K SINGH
JUDGE
jjj
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
48
2024:KER:86523
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23464/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SECURITIZATION APPLICATION
NO.530/2022 FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II,
ERNAKULAM WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 20.08.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SECURITIZATION
APPLICATION NO.530/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE
THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, ERNAKULAM, WITHOUT
ANNEXURES DATED 21.11.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.530/2022 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II,
ERNAKULAM, WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 31.12.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SECURITIZATION
APPLICATION NO.530/2022 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, ERNAKULAM, WITHOUT
ANNEXURES DATED 23.01.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 06.07.2022
ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 29.10.2022 ISSUED BY
FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION NOTICE DATED
28.11.2022 IN MC 716/2022 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED12.07.2023
ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE FOR MOVABLE
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
49
2024:KER:86523
PROPERTY DATED 10.07.2023 ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED
BY FIRST RESPONDENT BANK IN IA278/24 IN RA (SA) 49/2023 FILED
BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI,
WITHOUT DOCUMENT DATED 30.03.2023
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO.530/2022 OF DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 30/11/2022
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO.530/2022 OF DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 13/12/2022
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO.530/2022 OF DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 12/01/2023
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO.530/2022 OF DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 24/01/2023
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO.530/2022 OF DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 21/02/2023
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN SA NO.530/2022 OF DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 19/04/2023
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT) 266/2023 OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT DATED 11/07/2023
Exhibit P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN SECURITIZATION
APPLICATION NO.530/2022 OF THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II,
ERNAKULAM DATED 07.07.2023
Exhibit P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS AIR (SA)
NO.956/2023 WHICH WAS LATER NUMBERED AS RA (SA) 49/2023
FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI,
WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 01.08.2023
Exhibit P20 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NUMBER 126/2023 IN RA (SA) 49/2023
FILED BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,
CHENNAI, WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 25.11.2023
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
50
2024:KER:86523
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT) 291/2023 DATED
08.08.2023
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEBT RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 03.10.2023 IN IA NO.
346/2023 IN AIR (SA) 956/2023
Exhibit P23 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 06.10.2023 WITH
NO. 639015 OF IDFC FIRST BANK, NOIDA
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE E-COURTS DAILY STATUS IN MC 716/2022 OF THE
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 12.10.2023
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (DRT) 425/2023 DATED
16.10.2023
Exhibit P26 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2024 IN WP
36310/2023
Exhibit P27 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2024IN WP (C)
23315/2023
Exhibit P28 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WRIT
APPEAL 489/2024
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEBT RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 26.02.2024 AND 08.03.24 IN
RA (SA) 49/2023
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEBT
RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 15.04.2024 IN RA
(SA) 49/2023
Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEBT
RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 08.05.2024 IN RA
(SA) 49/2023
Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI RA (SA) 49/2023
DATED 24.05.2024
WP(C) NO. 23464 OF 2024
51
2024:KER:86523
Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP (DRT) 201/2024 DATED
14.06.2024
Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP (DRT) 201/2024 DATED
24.06.2024
Exhibit P35 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN RA (SA) 49/2023 OF THE DEBT
RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI DATED 12.06.2024
Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2024 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO
APPEAL NO 14273/2024 OF HON’ BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.07.2024 TO DGM, STATE BANK
OF INDIA, SAMB COIMBATORE
Exhibit P38 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 20.07.2024 FOR RS
30,00,00,000/- OF IDFC FIRST BANK, NOIDA
Exhibit P39 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT IN SA 530/2022 DATED
11.01.2023 BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -2, ERNAKULAM
WITHOUT ANNEXURES
Exhibit P40 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2022 ISSUED TO 2ND
PETITIONER ALONG WITH ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit P41 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 25.11.2022 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER
Exhibit P42 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 21.10.2022 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER
Legal Notes
Add a Note....