M/S Pargati Feeds And Another v. The Indian Overseas Bank And Others
-1-
M/S PARGATI FEEDS & ANOTHER
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK & OTHERS
!"# $%& !"%!'( % !"# )& "
$
* ! "# * $ % +
!"# , ----- . (
& /
) 0 1 0"
2 34 .1
5061 30.1 (7 08 1 ! 9 / )
9( :* $ Availing of financial credit as is detailed in para No.3 of writ petition i.e. Cash Credit Loan of Rs.4.30 crores and term loan of Rs.5,69,70,000/- by petitioners vide sanction letter dated 05.08.2013 are matter of record. The factory, land & buildings as well as plant & machinery etc. were mortgaged along with agricultural land and residential house, as detailed in para No.3 of the writ petition. Residential house was
-2also mortgaged in respect to housing loan of Rs.29 lakhs availed of by petitioner No.2 namely Satish Kumar and three others. Financial indiscipline on the part of petitioners for reasons as may be is not denied leading to declaration of petitioners' account non-performing asset ('NPA') on 31.03.2019 with notice (s) under Section 13 (2) being issued on 24.04.2019 & 30.04.2019 respectively (Annexures P-3 and P-4). Various sale notices were issued with sale notice (s) dated 02.04.2022 (Annexures P-9 & P-10) being subject matter of challenge in present writ petition. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that property in question i.e. the residential house was undervalued. Moreover, there has been complete violation of applicable provisions of law insofar as proceedings under
initiated against petitioners are concerned. Reserve price of the property as per sale notice dated 30.06.2020 was Rs.1,18,08,200/- thereafter increased to Rs.1,32,89,700/- vide sale notice dated 02.12.2020. However, as per impugned sale notice dated 02.04.2022 it was reduced to Rs.1,15,54,000/-. It is submitted that this action has been taken only to the benefit of auction purchaser i.e. respondent No.4 in collusion and in conspiracy with each other. Residential house was mortgaged in two of the loan accounts once of which stands settled. It is, thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed while setting aside the impugned notices and subsequent sale in favour of respondent No.4. 4.
Learned counsel for respondent - Bank has opposed this writ petition while raising the ground of entertainability of the writ petition
-3itself. It is further submitted that entire proceedings have been undertaken inconsonance with the applicable provisions. There is huge outstanding of Rs.22 crores from petitioners. Even after the sale of the property in question the only objective of petitioners is to delay the recovery proceedings. The property in question has been auctioned for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,86,54,000/- on 27.04.2022. There is no question of undervaluation of the property in any manner. Dismissal of writ petition is sought.
! " #
# #
# # $ %
%$
&
' ' ( )
*+, -
.
(#
(
/ %
. )% "
#-
!
" #$% &' ( ( $ )) ;
) +) !' <9 =
0123
&$ #
&
"% - % *
-
&
$
$
.
%
-4- ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 14& . $
&
-
#
&
&
(# .
$&
5 %
& % & #
%&
%
&
(# . $
6.
(# %
& % $
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 1!6 .)
. !4 $ .$. - 7 - 8 $9
4 4--2113
$
- # $
6.
. %
. % 6 6.
& &
% # &
%
%
: %5#
# #
1, 1 %$
(#
$
% (#
0
#
0&
##
6.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 1;3 % &
# &
* -
&. : .(
(
# %
# %
)
:
$ %
.
& & %
# $ #
## # 0 * 8 #
#
(
(#
&
-5- . - % % . $& &
. ## #
+6.
# $ , <# % $&
&
% & #
3 #
%& . #
& &6
(#
#
; = %
##
#
% &
# %+
> ?+@ Whether reportable:
Yes/No