Bombay High Court
M/S Eco Paint Industries, Thr. ... vs Canara Bank, Thr. Authorised Officer, ... on 10 January, 2022
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
1/5 20.wp.139.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2022
(M/s Eco Paint Industries V/s Canara Bank, Buttibori & Anr.)
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances, court's
orders or directions and
Prothonotary's orders
Mr. D. V. Chauhan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Wadodkar, Advocate for Respondent
No.1 - Bank.
------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 10, 2022.
. Heard. The contention is that the reserve price
of the secured assets which are going to be sold in public auction as per the fourth auction sale notice dated 25/11/2021 is tagged with a very meagre reserve price of Rs.20,00,000/-, which is contrary to the own valuation report of the Respondent No.1 - Bank, which says, in May- 2019 the fair market value of the asset was Rs.51,17,000/- and its Realisable Sale Value was Rs.46,05,000/- with Distress Sale Value was Rs.40,95,000/- which is not permissible in law as it violates Section 13 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & 2/5 20.wp.139.2022.odt Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act') and also the Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
2. A reliance has been placed upon the law laid down in this regard in the case of J. Rajiv Subramaniyan and another V/s Pandiyas and others, (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 651.
3. Issue notice for final disposal at admission stage to the Respondents, returnable within two weeks.
4. The learned Counsel Mr. Wadodkar waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 - Bank.
5. Mr. Chauhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for grant of interim relief which is opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 by contending that the Petition is not maintainable because an interim application filed by the Petitioner in the Security Application No. 50/2021 was heard by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, but, no order has been passed by him, and therefore, the Application could be said to have been impliedly rejected by the learned Presiding Officer or it can be said that the 3/5 20.wp.139.2022.odt Application filed by the Petitioner has been rendered infructuous.
6. The argument is fallacious to say the least. By no stretch of imagination, could it be said by anybody that any judicial authority which after hearing a matter does not pass any order could be construed as having impliedly rejected the matter, nor could it be said that because of non-passing of the order, the matter has been rendered infructuous.
7. This is a case in which a stage has reached that the Presiding Officer is no longer available, he having retired in the last week of December-2021 and his vacancy having not been filled up by the appropriate Government and his charge having not been given to any other Debts Recovery Tribunal. In such cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made a request to the High Court to entertain the matters which arise under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act on account of Security Application having been filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is for this reason that this Court is entertaining this Application and preliminary objection taken by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 is rejected.
4/5 20.wp.139.2022.odt
8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 seeks time for obtaining appropriate instructions on merits of the matter.
9. The time can always be given, but, while giving the time, we think it appropriate that a status quo with regard to sale or proposed sale of the security asset is maintained, so that no prejudice is caused to the interest of the borrower i.e. the Petitioner and also the interest of the secured creditor like Respondent No.1. This is because of the fact that the reserve price fixed by the Respondent No.1
- Bank in this case is much below the own valuation report of the Respondent No.1 and prima facie inconsistent with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J. Rajiv Subramaniyan (cited supra).
10. In view of above, we direct that parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the sale of the secured assets as of date till next date, on the condition that the Petitioner to deposit the amounts in this Court, which the Petitioner has voluntarily accepted to deposit as per the schedule of payment tendered across the bar, which is marked as document 'A' for identification, by the dates shown therein.
5/5 20.wp.139.2022.odt
11. Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.
12. Stand over after two weeks.
(ANIL L. PANSARE J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) Yadav VG Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA GOURISHANKAR YADAV Signing Date:10.01.2022 19:15