I.A. Nos. 176 to 184 of 2016. Case: Wise Industrial Park and Ors. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberI.A. Nos. 176 to 184 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Hashmat Nabi, Advocate
JudgesRanjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
IssueBanking Law
Judgement DateMarch 09, 2016
CourtDelhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)


Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)

  1. Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Counsel for the Appellants. Since I have heard the Counsel and I have considered the pleas raised in the Appeals on merit, the prayer in the applications filed for seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the Appeals are ignored.

  2. As the property has been sold and a substantial amount has been recovered, the applications for seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit to maintain these Appeals may not have much significance. The waiver applications are accordingly closed.

  3. A property measuring 188.33 acres at Industrial Area, Masurie Gulawati Road, Hapur, Ghaziabad was put to public sale pursuant to the R.C. No. 45/2014 issued for recovery of Rs. 51,34,74,787.60 and R.C. No. No. 49/2014 issued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,79,27,317, along with interest.

  4. Recovery Officer had taken action to put the mortgaged property to sale by way of auction where KJS Concrete Pvt. Ltd. has purchased the property.

  5. Objections were filed against the auction sale by the Appellant borrowers as well as Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) (Respondent No. 2). The Recovery Officer though had dismissed the objections so filed by UPSIDC and the borrowers, but, while considering the issue of confirmation of sale, found certain infirmities in the manner of conducting auction and had set aside the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. Aggrieved against the same, the Respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce (CH) (Respondent No. 1) and the auction purchaser KJS Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) filed separate Appeals before the Tribunal below to challenge the order passed by the Recovery Officer. The Presiding Officer has allowed these Appeals and has set aside the order passed by the Recovery Officer. Aggrieved against the same, the Appellant borrowers have filed these Appeals.

  6. The Recovery Officer had set aside the e-auction sale on the ground that the auction of the mortgaged property in question was not held as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the e-auction notice dated 15th January, 2015. This finding is returned on the basis of some reports filed before the Recovery Officer in regard to the e-auction, etc. As per the Recovery Officer, the highest bidder had not deposited the earnest money in time as required by the sale notice and, hence, could not have been allowed to participate in the sale.

  7. The Tribunal below has considered the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT