Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. vs M/S Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd on 8 April, 2015

Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant

  SLP(C) 5752/14
                                                        1

  ITEM NO.1                                   COURT NO.5                  SECTION XIIA

                                  S U P R E M E C O U R T O F          I N D I A
                                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5752/2014

  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/02/2014
  in WP No. 37381/2013 passed by the High Court of A.P. at
  Hyderabad)


  INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD                                              Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

  M/S DECCAN CHRONICLE HOLDINGS LTD & ORS                                     Respondent(s)


  Date : 08/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.


  CORAM :
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT


  For Petitioner(s)                     Mr.   Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
                                        Mr.   Ankur Saigal, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
                                        Mr.   E. C. Agrawala, AOR

  For Respondent(s)                     Mr.   Arvind P. Dattar, Sr. Adv.
                                        Mr.   Alok Dhir, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Apoorved Karol, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Vaibhav Tyagi, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Rahul Pratap, AOR

                                        Mr. C. Mukund, Adv.
                                        Mr. Abhilash Attri, Adv.
                                        Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR


Signature Not Verified
                             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                O R D E R

Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2015.04.09 09:25:59 IST Reason: This Court on 25th March, 2015, had passed the following order:

SLP(C) 5752/14 2 “In course of hearing, a suggestion was given to the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Arvind P. Dattar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, prays for and allowed one week's time to obtain instructions.
Let the matter be listed on 8th April, 2015.” Mr. Arvind P. Dattar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that two of the properties which are mortgaged with the petitioner can be sold and the amount be deposited in a separate account of the Bank. The description of the said properties is as follows:
“1. Residential House at 8-2-283/B (Comprising 8-2-283/B/1/A, 8-2-283/401, 302, 102, 101, 201-2002, 301 having sanctioned building plan vide proceedings in Plot No.1) Road No.3 Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad admeasuring 855 Sq.Yds.

2. Residential House at 8-2-283/B (Comprising 8-2-283/B/5 in Sy.No.403/30 on plot No.2) Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad admeasuring 855 Sq.Yds.” It is submitted by Mr. Dattar that the aforesaid properies are likely to fetch approximately Rs.20 crores and he would arrange a buyer.

SLP(C) 5752/14 3 Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he has got a valuation certificate and the amount suggested by Mr. Dattar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, is quite fair.

As there is a mutual agreement for sale and there is a desire on the part of the respondent to pay back the loan amount, the procedure of auction need not be adopted regard being had to the concept of settlement.

The respondent shall go with the buyer to the financial institution within three weeks and, thereafter, the procedure for transfer shall be completed within a week therefrom. The price may vary up to 10%, either on minus or plus side and the exact price should not be insisted upon by the financial institution, the petitioner herein. In case, the respondent fails to arrange a buyer on his own, it will be open to the financial institution to put the said properties in auction. We say so as an abundant measure.

Let the matter be listed for further hearing on 13th May, 2015.

                 (Chetan Kumar)                           (H.S. Parasher)
                  Court Master                              Court Master