Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Delight Texfab Pvt. Ltd vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 25 January, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~24.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1518/2022
M/S DELIGHT TEXFAB PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghav Kumar, Advocate.
versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 25.01.2022 C.M. No.4314/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1518/2022
3. The present writ petition has been preferred to assail the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the DRT, Jaipur, whereby two applications, i.e. I.A. Nos.1707/2021 & 1708/2021 preferred by the applicant in the Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act pending consideration, have been dismissed.
4. The petitioner is the mortgagor of the property. To recover the dues of the borrowers, the respondent Bank has sold different floors of the property in stages. The aforesaid two applications related to the first and the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.01.2022 15:55 second floor. The auction notice in respect of the first and the second floor was issued on 25.10.2021. On 17.11.2021, the auction was to be conducted and the respondent received bids only in respect of the first floor. The respondent accepted the highest bid and even issued the Sale Certificate in respect thereof on 31.12.2021. For the second floor, no bids were received for which a fresh auction notice was issued on 07.12.2021, whereby the auction was fixed on 27.12.2021.
5. The grievance raised by the petitioner in relation to the auction notices issued by the respondent, including the one issued on 25.10.2021, was that the said notices reflected the outstanding amount as Rs.4,00,81,408/-, as on 30.11.2017, together with further interest and other charges thereon on the contractual rates on the footing of compound interest and till full & final payment/ realisation due to Kotak Mahindra Bank from the borrowers and guarantors. The grievance was that even though the respondent bank had sold different portions of the property from time to time, i.e. the Basement, Ground Floor and Third Floor earlier, the amount realised in the said sales were not given credit in the account of the borrower and the amount continued to reflect as aforesaid, i.e. Rs.4,00,81,408/-, as on 30.11.2017. This plea was examined and rejected by the Tribunal by observing that the notices correctly reflect the outstanding liability as on 30.11.2017.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect and we also do not find any merit in this submission. The auction notice does not get vitiated by the aforesaid notation, since what is recorded is a historical fact, and does not have any bearing on material part of the auction notice which, firstly, describes the name of the mortgagor; secondly, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.01.2022 15:55 describes the immovable property put to auction; thirdly, describes the reserve price; and, fourthly, the EMD, apart from giving notice to the prospective purchasers about the date & time of auction and other terms & conditions. We, therefore, reject this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The second grievance raised by learned counsel is that even though two applications had been filed, as noticed above, the impugned order has been passed only in one of the applications, and not the other. We do not find any merit in this submission either. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the DRT, Jaipur has considered the submissions advanced by the parties and held that there was no infirmity in the auction notices which were placed before it, including the auction notice dated 25.10.2021. As aforesaid, that notice related to both the first and the second floor of the property. The subsequent auction notice dated 07.12.2021- in respect of the second floor, did not form the subject matter of the applications before the Tribunal. We, therefore, reject this submission as well.
8. Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been provided the up-to-date statement of account by the respondent Bank. This position is disputed by Mr. Tandon, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent Bank. He states that the statement of account has been filed along with the reply to the Securitisation Application moved by the petitioner. He further submits that even before the Tribunal, the respondent had disclosed that the outstanding dues were approximately Rs.10.88 Crores. In any event, he states that the up-to-date account statement shall be furnished to the petitioner within two days. Let the same be done.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.01.2022 15:559. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since now DRTs in Delhi are functional, the proceedings pending before the DRT, Jaipur after transfer may be re-transferred to DRT, Delhi. This is not opposed by Mr. Tandon as well and rightly so. We, therefore, direct that the proceedings transferred to the DRT, Jaipur in the petitioner's case would stand re-transferred to DRT, Delhi and assigned to the concerned DRT.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 25, 2022 B.S. Rohella Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:27.01.2022 15:55