Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By its order in S.A.No.252 of 2015 dated 18.11.2015, the DRT directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.60 Lakhs on or before 03.12.2015 and a further sum of Rs.60 Lakhs on or before 14.12.2015 (totalling to Rs.120 lakhs representing 10% of the OTS offer). Upon such deposit, the respondent-bank was directed to defer the proposed sale, consider the OTS proposal, and convey their decision on or before 17.12.2015. As the petitioner had expressed its willingness to make payment of the entire OTS offer of Rs.1205 lakhs on or before 31.03.2016, the respondent-bank was directed to grant them time and consider the OTS proposal. The DRT made it clear that, in the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the upfront amount of Rs.120 Lakhs, the respondents were at liberty to proceed and take action in accordance with law. The petitioner complied with the order of the DRT, and deposited Rs.60 Lakhs on 02.12.2015, and the remaining Rs.60 Lakhs on 13.12.2015, totalling to Rs.120 Lakhs with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide letter dated 19.01.2016, accepted the petitioners request for OTS on a one time payment of Rs.12.71 Crores on condition that the properties would be released only after full and final payment of the OTS amount.

The second respondent-bank again issued E-auction notice dated 13.04.2016, under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, proposing to conduct a sale of six items of immoveable property on 18.05.2016, fixing the reserve price at Rs.161.64 lakhs. While the petitioner filed W.P. No.16234 of 2016, its sister concern filed I.A. No.206 of 2016 in S.A. No.252 of 2015 before the DRT for restoration of the OTS proposal. By its order dated 12.05.2016, the DRT directed the respondent bank to allow inspection of the original title deeds to the probable buyers brought by the petitones, and to allow sale of the property to the buyers arranged by them. The DRT observed that, in this way, the respondent bank would be able to recover its dues directly from the petitioners, and the applicants would also be able to get more value for their property. The DRT directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10 lakhs within one week from the date of the order, and directed the respondent bank to allow inspection of the original title deeds to the probable buyers brought by the petitioners, and to accept the amount paid by the petitioners or paid by the probable buyers. The respondent bank was also directed to cooperate with the petitioner in the sale of the secured assets to the buyers arranged by them. The OTS amount of 1270 lakhs was directed to be accepted on payment of interest thereon upto 30.06.2016. The petitioners were directed to arrange buyers, and to pay the OTS amount along with interest upto 30.06.2016. On payment of Rs.10 lakhs within one week from the date of the order, the DRT directed the respondent-bank to defer the sale to be held on 18.05.2016, and to allow time to the petitioners to clear off the dues upto 30.06.2016, by sale of property themselves. The DRT made it clear that, in case the petitioners failed to pay Rs.10 lakhs within one week and in case the OTS amount along with interest, was not paid even after showing the original title deeds to the petitioner and the probable buyers, the respondent bank was at liberty to proceed with the sale of the said properties after 30.06.2016. S.A. No.252 of 2014 was, accordingly, disposed of.

In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners stated that the respondent-bank had lost sight of the fact that no person would be willing to go to the DRT for inspection of the original documents for fear of buying properties under litigation; as against the order of the DRT dated 18.11.2015, directing the second respondent-bank to consider the OTS proposal made by them within thirty days i.e., on or before 17.12.2015, the second respondent-bank had accepted the OTS proposal only on 19.01.2016; and the petitioner had lost valuable time of more than one month to meet the dead line of 31.03.2016 fixed by the Tribunal.

In his counter-affidavit, the Chief Manager of the respondent- bank submits that the petitioner was not entitled to seek plural remedies in a single Writ Petition; they did not challenge the specific order passed by the authorised officer of the respondent- bank; they had only challenged the letter dated 08.08.2016 rejecting their representation dated 24.06.2016, and in cancelling the OTS acceptance vide letter dated 19.01.2016; the OTS approval or rejection did not fall within the ambit of the SARFAESI Act; and since it did not contain a specific prayer and was vague, the Writ Petition as filed was not maintainable. The respondents contend that granting or rejecting OTS fell within the credit decision and discretionary power of the respondent-bank, for which a writ of mandamus cannot be issued; the bank cannot be compelled to accept the OTS proposal of the petitioner; granting of OTS may fall within the purview of contractual obligations, and rejection of OTS may mean breach of the contract; contractual obligations are not, ordinarily, enforced in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petitioners loan account was classified as an NPA on 29.07.2011 because of non-payment of the dues; notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were issued; the respondent-bank had filed O.A.Nos.46 and 50 of 2013, and had obtained recovery certificates dated 02.05.2014 and 23.07.2014 for Rs.9,17,41,263.37ps. and Rs.18,59,29,683/- respectively under Section 19 of the RDDB Act; the process of execution was pending before the Recovery Officer, DRT, Visakhapatnam; the respondent- bank was entitled to proceed under the SARFAESI Act without giving up the O.A or the recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act; and the Writ Petition, challenging the recovery proceedings pending before the DRT, was not maintainable.