M/s. Shree Balaji International And Another vs Authorized Officer, Union Bank Of India, Cuttack And Others

Petitioner No.1, a partnership firm is facing recovery process under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 leading to two of the mortgaged properties offered as Collateral Security put to auction on 21.12.2022 for an outstanding liability of around Rs.2,06,00,000/-. It transpires that the property No.2 comprising 13 (Thirteen) shops commercial complex was successfully auctioned for a sum of Rs.2,40,10,000/-. The petitioner No.1-firm admittedly filed S.A. No.160 of 2022 before the DRT, Cuttack challenging the sale notice and the consequential sale proceedings.

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the same very sale notice dated 30.11.2022 fixing the auction sale for 21.12.2022, which we were not persuaded to accept as being parallel proceedings and that too without impleading the Auction Purchaser. However, in light of the petitioners seeking to enforce their Right of Redemption, this Court issued notice subject to the petitioners depositing the total amount of sale price offered by the Auction Purchaser.

The order dated 16.01.2023 reads as under:-

“1. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel files appearance memo on behalf of the petitioners in Court today. The same is taken on record.

Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Rath, counsel for the petitioner in the cause list as well as case brief.

To entertain the present petition in spite of the S.A. No.160 of 2022 filed by the petitioners before the D.R.T., Cuttack, let the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,00000/- (subject to adjustments) on or before 20th January, 2023.

List on 24th January, 2023.

In case, the aforesaid amount is deposited, the issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser shall be kept in abeyance till the next date.

At the time of resumed hearing today, it is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that the required amount in terms of the aforesaid order has not been deposited and in fact counsel for the petitioner has brought a draft for a sum of Rs.70 lakhs only and seeks more time, which is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the Bank.

In view of the fact that the petitioners have failed to utilize the concession granted by this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition any further.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Petitioners are free to pursue their remedy in the S.A. already filed and pending before the DRT.

……………………………