Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6 Precise of Facts :
(a) It is not in dispute that borrower company had borrowed from five different banks by mortgaging suit properties in favour of those banks. Borrower company has borrowed Rs.70 Crores from first defendant bank and Rs.50 Crores each from four other banks.
(b) Subsequently, in the light of the direction which the loan accounts took led to five creditor banks forming a consortium with first defendant as lead bank. The first defendant, in its capacity as lead bank of consortium of creditor banks, gave a letter dated 29.04.2009 (plaint document No.1) captioned 'LETTER CEDING PARI PASSU CHARGE', wherein and whereby first defendant in its capacity as lead bank of the consortium, ceded pari passu charge in favour of plaintiff.
(b) The e-auction notice dated 13.8.2018 issued by second defendant says that suit properties being sold by way of http://www.judis.nic.in e-auction are free from encumbrance of plaintiff and this would tantamount to giving a go-by to plaintiff's pari passu charge over suit properties.
(c) If second defendant sells suit properties in the auction, giving a go-by to plaintiff's pari passu charge over suit properties, plaintiff will be left high and dry.
(b) Elaborating on the first submission of plaintiff that this suit has been filed with a limited prayer to injunct defendants from discharging plaintiff's pari passu charge over suit properties, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the primordial objective of the suit is protection of pari passu charge of plaintiff. Referring to e-auction notice dated 13.8.2018, plaintiff's counsel submitted that e-auction notice says that sale of suit properties will be free from encumbrance of plaintiff company.

44. To put it differently, when there is no dispute or disagreement that the plaintiff has a pari passu charge as a co-mortgagee qua properties which are subject matter of the auction notice, there cannot be any auction ignoring the rights of the plaintiff. Further, the order of this Court is to the effect that it should be made clear to intending auction purchasers that plaintiff has a pari passu charge and that the price for which the hammer goes down will include a proportionate share of the sale proceeds to the plaintiff. This is to ensure that the proposed auction purchasers are not dissuaded from participating owing to another charge to clear as that may mean going through the onerous and arduous task of negotiating with a co-mortgagee with pari passu charge after auction purchase. Equally, the order also intends to protect the rights of the plaintiff so that the auction is not conducted ignoring the plaintiff's charge or plaintiff's status as a co- mortgagee qua the properties which are subject matter of auction.