M/S J.V. Abacus Net Comm (P) Limited v. The Authorised Officer
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE DT, JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 11219 OF 2022 Between:
It//s J.V. Abacus Net Comm (P) Limited, Company regd. under the Companies Act, 1956, Door No. 6-2-120. Flat No. 502, Pushpavathi Residency, New Boiguda, Secunderabad - 500003 (TS) Rep. by its Managing Director, tr,4r G. Jayaprakash, S/o late G. Narasimha Rao. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . The Authorised Officer, (under SARFAESI Act, 2002), Canara Bank, 3rd Floor, Circle Office Building, MCH No. 10-3-163 and 10-3-163/A, Plot No.85, Survey No. 625, Beside Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad - 500028 (TS).
2. The Asst. General Manager, ARM Branch, Canara Bank, 3rd Floor, Circle Office Building, II4CH No. 10-3-163 and 10-3-163/A, Plot No. 85, Survey No. 625, Beside Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad - 500028 (TS). RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the Auction Notice No. 7700-8R12752211110912021, dated 18.01 .2022 of the Authorised Officer, the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the properties of the petitioner company, item No. 1 and 2 therein as bad, illegal, void and contrary to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction, etc.
, Act, 2002 and also to the terms of the One Time Settlement Offer (OTS) of the Bank vide reference No. HYD/ARM/211ISANC/0S12021 , daled 10.05.2021 of the Chief Manager of the Respondent No. 2 Bank which were acted upon by the Bank by accepting the payment of sum of Rs.2,00,000/- made by the petitioner on 30.03.
No. 2 Bank to extend the facility of consent sale of all the three properties of the petitioner which are under mortgage in favour of the Respondent Nio. 2 Bank so as to secure the optimum bids for sale of the same underthe SARFAESI Act, 2002 to minimize the unwarranted loss to the petitioner company by postponing the proposed auction sale by three months from 04.03.2022 to enable the petitioner to undertake and complete the repair works to the three properties. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass interim orders of suspension of the operation of the impugned Auction Notice No. 7700 BR/ 2752-211110912021, dated 18.01 .2022 of the Authorised Officer, the Respondent No.
1 in respect of the properties of the petitioner company, item No. 1 and 2 for a period of three (3) months to enable the petitioner to undertake repairs to the properties under sale and to get prospective buyers by way of consent sale to get fair and optimum price for the properties, pending disposal of the W.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. MALOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.V.S.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared The Gourt made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION No.LL2L9 of 2022 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ujjal Bhuy an) Heard Mr. G.Maloji Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.V.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the 2"'1 respondent' 2.
By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of Sale Notice dated 18.01.2022 proposing to hold auction sale of the two schedule properties on 04.O3'2022' 3.
Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of sales and services of IT equipments' For its business purpose, it had I availed overdraft facility from the respondent-Canara Bank' For availing such credit facilities, petitioner had mortgaged three properties including the turo schedule properties as per the Sale Notice dated l8.Ol'2022.
I
UB,J & DT.CSL,J W.P.No.11219 of 2022 4.
For default in repayment, Canara Bank classified the loan account of the petitioner as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and thereafter invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'SARFAESI Act'). In this connection, Canara Bank took over the possession of the three mortgaged properties of the petitioner in the year 2015.
5.
In the meanwhile, following negotiations, petitioner's proposal for One time Settlement (OTS) \\ras accepted by authorities of the Calara Bank. As per the OTS, the settlement was fixed at Rs.44.26 lakhs. However, petitioner could pay only Rs.2,00,000.00. In view of such default of the petitioner, respondent-Canara Bank cancelled the OTS on 29.12.2021. lt was therea-fter that the impugned sale notice came to be issued. As per the impugned sale notice, outstanding dues of the petitioner has been quantified at Rs.2,92,42,548.O7 as on 31.t2.2021.
UB,J & DT.CSL,J W.P.No.11219 of 2022 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondent-Canara Bank had taken over physical possession of the schedule property way back in the year 2015, no watch and ward personnel were deputed to look after the property. As a result, the schedule properties have suffered extensive damage. He submits that the auction sale may be kept in abeyance for a period of three months to enable the petitioner to undertake repairs of the schedule properties and to ensure that the schedule properties fetch a better price in the auction sale.
7.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the auction scheduled on 04.03.2022, tlne schedule property at Serial No.1 has got no bidders, whereas the property at Serial No.2 has one bidder as on date.
8.
On a query by the Court, Iearned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not challenged the action of respondent-Canara Bank under the SARFAESI Act before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal.
I
UB,J & DT.CSL,J W.P.No.11219 of 2022 9.
If that be the position, with no legal challenge raised as to the impugned Sale Notice, we are unable to accede to the request of the petitioner. Insofar the prayer of the petitioner for extension or revival of OTS is concerned, it is entirelv between the petitioner and the secured creditor; it being a private contract. Court has hardly any role to play in the matter. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere in the matter.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.
1 1. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. S,D/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR\ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER To,
1. One CC to SRt G.MALOJI RAO, Advocate tOpUCl
2. One CC to SRt A.V.S.S.PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl
3. Two C.D. Copies.
4. One Spare Copy.
w MRC TR rl ..!
HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2022 t:L4 (j s * o UJ d.
c) ff-( o c<J \=
ORDER
WP.No.11219 ol 2022 o t-1 ..) ,,,, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f*