Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 158 (MP)

Garden Pick Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bank of India

2014-02-05

A.M.KHANWILKAR, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition takes exception to the decision of the Debts. Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur dated 10.1.2014 in S.A.No.187/2013. 2. The petitioner, in effect, is challenging the auction process in respect of Plot which is owned and possessed by him. The auction process has been completed by the respondent-Bank on 20.1.2014 by accepting highest bid given by Baibhav Patil of District Harda. 3. Challenge to the said auction process before this Court is, essentially, on two counts. Firstly, about the irregularity committed by the Bank which precedes the stage of section 13(4) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement Of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short “the Act”). The question is: whether the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the said infirmity at this belated stage having allowed the process from the stage of section 13(4) of the Act to proceed further in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal on 29/10/2013 in the proceedings taken out by the petitioner himself. 4. The argument before us is that the ground on which the petitioner intends to assail the entire auction process was not urged before the Tribunal which had the occasion to decide the proceedings on 29.10.2013 and for which reason it is open to the petitioner to agitate that plea. 5. We are not impressed with this submission at all. In the first place, the order dated 29.10.2013 makes it amply clear that the petitioner had argued “only two points” before the Tribunal, as can be discerned from paragraph 5 of the said order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering those two points passed the order in favour of the petitioner to the effect of directing the Bank to follow the procedure from the stage of section 13(4) of the Act. Secondly, as aforesaid, the petitioner not only acquiesced of the order dated 29.10.2013, but also allowed the auction process from the stage of section 13(4) to proceed further. The fact that the said ground was available and has not been pointedly answered by the Tribunal in its order dated 29.10.2013, therefore, cannot be the basis to overturn the entire process which otherwise proceeded in compliance with the mandatory provisions from the stage of section 13(4) of the Act as ordered by the Tribunal on the application filed by the petitioner. 6. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti ( AIR 1980 SC 161 ), in particular, exposition in paragraph 5 of the judgment. 7. In the present case, however, the ground which is sought to be urged is not on account of distinct cause of action as was the case in the reported decision. The ground was very much available to the petitioner in the first round on the basis of the same cause of action but was never pressed into service nor pursued to its logical end. 8. The petitioner then contends that there is mis-description of the property in the auction notice published by the Bank. 9. This contention was raised before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noted in second paragraph of the impugned order that the counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded at the time of arguments that, in fact, at the time of mortgaging, the property was situated in District Hoshangabad and subsequently, after restructuring, new District Harda was formed, and now the property is situated in district Harda. 10. The counsel submits that if proper description of the property was notified, some more bidders would have participated in the auction process. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that due to misdescription, no offers were received. From the communication tendered across Bar by the counsel for the Bank, it is obvious that the bids were received pursuant to the auction notice and the auction was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder on 20.1.2014. Incidentally, the said highest bidder is resident of New LIC Colony in district Harda (MP). In that sense, the ground raised by the petitioner that more residents of district Harda would have participated, is devoid of any substance. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the auction price which has been accepted by the Bank is below the reserved price. The reserved price of the Plot in question was fixed at Rs.11,000,00/- (Rupees eleven lacs), whereas the highest bid which has been accepted by the Bank is over Rupees fifteen lacs and fifty one thousand. The action of the Bank in fixing the reserved price at Rupees Eleven Lacs has not been challenged. 12. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, even second ground urged before us does not merit consideration. 13. The action of the Bank in fixing the reserved price at Rupees Eleven Lacs has not been challenged. 12. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, even second ground urged before us does not merit consideration. 13. No other ground has been urged before us. 14. We are of the opinion that this petition is devoid of merits. 15. We, however, place on record the preliminary objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner ought to have resorted to the statutory remedy of appeal against impugned decision of the Tribunal. We did not invoke that objection as we are in agreement with the submission of the petitioner that the said remedy, though provided by the statute, is not available as of now for want of Presiding Officer in the said Tribunal. Therefore, we thought it appropriate to examine the matter on merits. 16. Petition disposed of, accordingly.