IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 31565 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S ELOGIC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, 100 FEET RING ROAD, KATHRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.T.D.PRAKASH.
.. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANJAY GOWDA.N.S, ADV.) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER M/s FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, BRAHMANADA COURT, # 37, LAL BAGH ROAD BENGALURU- 560 027.
2. M/s FULLERTON INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, BRAHMANADA COURT, # 37, LAL BAGH ROAD BENGALURU- 560 027 BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, LEGAL & COMPLIANCE.
..RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE NOTIFICATION DATED 2.7.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-FIX THE RESERVE PRICE OF THE SECURED IMMOVABLE ASSET AS Rs.7,85,89,400/- BY EITHER ADOPTING THE VALUATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO OBTAIN A TRUE AND CORRECT VALUATION OF THE IMMOVABLE SECURED ASSET IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sanjay Gowda.N.S, learned counsel for petitioner.
Sri.V.Suresh, learned counsel for respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, office objections ignored.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashment of sale Notification dated 2.07.2019 and to re-fix the reserve price of the secured asset at Rs.7,85,89,400/-.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reserve price of the secured asset has been fixed at Rs.4.02 crores, whereas as per the market value its reserve price should be Rs.7,85,89,400/-. Before fixation of the reserve price, no notice under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was sent to the petitioner and unilaterally sale price has been fixed. It is also submitted that the property of the petitioner is being sold for paltry amount by the respondent-Bank.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner as well as respondent-Bank be granted liberty to nominate a valuer, each. The aforesaid valuer be directed to submit valuation report, based on which the respondent-Bank shall fix the reserve price.
6. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection.
7. In view of the submissions made and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner as well as respondent-Bank shall nominate one valuer each within a period of three days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The aforesaid valuer shall inspect the property and shall submit a report within a period of one week thereafter and on the basis of the report which may be submitted by the valuer, respondent-Bank shall fix the reserve price of the property in question. Till then, the property of the petitioner shall not be put to auction.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.