Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Central Bank Of India vs Apple Finance Limited And Ors. on 5 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: IV(2004)BC233
ORDER
Pratibha Upasani, J. (Chairperson)
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Bank namely Central Bank of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on the application made by the respondents dated 19.7.2002 (Exhibit 23) inter alia seeking modification of the earlier order dated 9.7.2002 (Exhibit 16).
2. The earlier order dated 9.7.2002 was passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the application made by the Bank and injunction as prayed in terms of prayer Clause (a) was granted. This order was passed after perusing valuation report. It also appears that at the time of hearing of this application, none was present on behalf of the defendants (the respondents herein). Prayer Clause (a) of the said application reads as follows:
"(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the application, the defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Tribunal from in any manner alienating, parting with, disposing of or creating any encumbrances over the property named Apple Towers, situated at Plot No. C-27, Block G, Bandra, Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051."
It does appear that order of injunction was with respect to the entire property i.e. Apple Towers, situated at Plot No. C-27, Block G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Thereafter an application for modification of the said order was moved by the defendants. It was submitted by the defendants in the said application for modification that value of the property, with respect to which injunction order was passed, was over Rs. 300 crores and the claim of the Bank was less than 1/10th of the value of the aforesaid property. It was further pointed out in the said application for modification that since the injunction order was passed with respect to the entire property, valuation of which, was far exceeding the claim of the Bank namely Central Bank of India, the defendants were thereby prevented from settling the claims of other lenders. Therefore, application for modification was made. On this application the impugned order dated 6.8.2002 came to be passed. Being aggrieved, the applicant Bank has approached this Appellant Tribunal.
I have heard Mr. Snehal Patil for the appellant and Ms. Marathe for the respondent No. 1. I have also gone through the proceedings including particulars of claim of the Bank. It appears that the clam of the Bank is about Rs. 4,85,33,480/- with further interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of application till payment. It also appears that statement of the respondents that worth of the property with respect to which injunction was passed, was over Rs. 300 crores is not disputed by the Bank. It is also revealed from the record that there are several other lenders from whom the respondents have taken loan. On this background, when value of the property, with respect to which blanket injunction order was passed earlier, which was an ex parte order, indeed was not justified. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer modified the earlier order granting relief of injunction only to the extent of 5th floor of the. Apple Towers. The suit claim is admittedly to the extent of about Rs. 5 crores excluding interest; however, worth of the property also admittedly is more than Rs. 300 crores. The respondents have got other several creditors with whom they want to settle and pay off their claims. Therefore, blanket injunction with respect to entire property belonging to the respondent No. 1 was not justified that mistake came to be rectified by the impugned order dated 6.8.2002. The Bank, therefore, has no reason to grumble. The respondents No. 1 has relied upon I (1991) BC 169 (SC)=AIR 1990 SC 119 (Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao and Anr.) to substantiate their contention.
3. In the above mentioned Supreme Court decision (AIR 1990 SC 119), auction sale was ordered of the entire property though only part of the portion was sufficient to satisfy decree. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that such an order should not be passed and it was obligatory on the Courts to see that not the entire property but only such portion as would satisfy the decree should be sold. Tendency to blind fold sell entire property, was thus deprecated by the Supreme Court. In the present case at hand also the same principle has to be applied. Blanket order of injunction with respect to entire property was indeed unwarranted. I therefore find nothing wrong in the impugned order. There is no substance in this appeal. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER Misc. Appeal No. 395 of 2002 is dismissed.