THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.1112 OF 2014 Dated: 21.01.2014 Between:
M/s. Axis Structurals Pvt. Ltd.
.. Petitioner And M/s. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.1112 OF 2014 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.A.No.4542 of 2013 in S.A.No.120 of 2013 is arbitrary and illegal.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal below declined to grant the stay of sale proposed by the 1st respondent Bank pending the petitioner’s appeal preferred under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). However, the Tribunal directed the respondent Bank not to confirm the sale till 10.01.2014 subject to the condition that the applicants shall discharge their entire liability with the respondent Bank on or before 10.01.2014. It was also made clear by the Tribunal that if the applicants fail to discharge their entire liability with the respondent Bank by 10.01.2014, the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to confirm the auction sale in favour of the highest bidder by following the procedure in accordance with law, which would be subject to the result of the appeal.
The said order is assailed before this Court primarily on the ground that the condition imposed by the Tribunal that the petitioner shall discharge the entire liability on or before 10.01.2014 is arbitrary and illegal since the main appeal is still pending. It is also contended that as the petitioner expressed its willingness to discharge the entire liability within a reasonable time, the Tribunal below ought to have stayed the sale.
On the other hand, Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Bank, on instructions submitted that since the petitioner failed to make the payment before 10.01.2014 as directed by the Tribunal, the sale was confirmed on 13.01.2014 and the sale certificate was issued in favour of the successful bidder on 20.01.2014 after receiving the entire bid amount. It is also brought to our notice that on 12.12.2013 an order was passed by the District Collector, Medak under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act appointing an advocate commissioner to take the physical possession of the secured assets and as proposed the sale of the said property was held on 27.12.2013.
In the facts and circumstances noticed above, particularly in view of the fact that the sale was already held on 27.12 .2013 and it was also confirmed, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge.
The decision of the Division Bench in M/s. India Finlease
[1]
Securities Ltd., Chennai v. Indian Overseas Bank relied upon by the petitioner, in our considered opinion is of no assistance to the petitioner. On the other hand, as per the ratio laid down by the Division Bench, it is always open to the petitioner to make an application under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act for redemption of the secured asset in case the petitioner succeeds in the appeal pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
For the aforesaid reasons, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
G.ROHINI, J T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 21.01.2014 Ivd
[1] AIR 2013 ANDHRA PRADESH 10