SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 658

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
Subhash Kathuria & Others
Versus
M/s. Deve Sugars Limited
C.A.Nos.1811 of 2005, C.A.No.854 of 2006 & C.A.No.2740 to 2742 of 2007 in C.P.No.170 of 1995 and C.P.No.35 of 1997
Decided on : 03-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicants :T.K. Seshadri, Senior Counsel, M/s. P.B. Ramanujam, counsel, M. Jeyakumar, P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate, M/s. S.R. Rajagopal counsel, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R2, M/s. Surana & Surana, R3, M. Rajendran counsel, Abdul Razak counsel, R1, Ramakrishnan, R. Ravichandran counsel, Advocates.

Headnote:

The sale of secured assets in public auction as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which ended in issuance of a sale certificate is a complete and absolute sale for the purposes of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The State Bank of Mysore advanced certain amounts to M/s.Tungabadra Sugars Works Ltd., and an application in O.A.No.440 of 1997 came to be filed before the DRT, Bangalore for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,31,78,5555. In the recovery proceedings in DCP No.1912 dated 10.08.2001, the land measuring an extent of 126 acres and 14 guntas was brought for sale and the property was sold to the third respondent (applicant in C.A.No.1811 of 2005). According to him, as per the conditional order passed by this Court on 10.03.2000 in C.A.No.1251 to 1253 of 1999, the sale ought not to have been conducted by the DRT. He accused that the third respondent who is the purchaser of the assets colluded with the Recovery Officer and purchased the property by committing fraud. According to him all the procedures in this regard were violated by the DRT and the Recovery Officer. It is further stated that the assets are very valuable and as per his scheme, even the unsecured creditor could be settled and further business operations of the company could be revived. Hence, he filed C.A.No.2740 to 2742 of 2007 for the aforesaid reliefs.

Finding of the Court:

The sale of the secured asset in public auction as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which ended in issuance of a sale certificate is a complete and absolute sale for the purposes of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the auction purchaser is entitled to get possession of the subject property and a direction is to be issued to the official liquidator to remove the security guards and hand over the possession of the property? 2. Whether the sale of secured assets in public auction as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which ended in issuance of a sale certificate is a complete and absolute sale for the purposes of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sale of the secured asset in public auction as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act which ended in issuance of a sale certificate is a complete and absolute sale for the purposes of the Act. 2. If that being so, even in the present case, it is to be considered that after the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser, the sale is a complete and absolute one. 3. It is true that challenging the sale, an appeal has been filed and the same is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal(DRT). But merely filing an appeal without obtaining any order of stay of further proceedings will not operate against the interest of the auction prucahser in taking possession of the property. 4. I am of the considered view that filing an appeal itself will not automatically stay all further proceedings. A petition for stay should be filed and orders should be obtained staying all further proceedings. Only then, it can be stated that the sale has not become final and the auction purchaser could not get possession. 5. Therefore, in the absence of any order of stay by the Debt Recovery Tribunal(DRT), the appeals filed challenging the auction sale, nothing can be put against the auction purchaser in taking possession of the property.

Final Decision: The auction purchaser has made out a case for getting possession of the subject property and accordingly, the Official Liquidator is directed to remove the security guards and handover the possession of the subject property to the applicant in C.A.No.1811 of 2005 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Judgment

The facts are as under:

2. CA.No.1811 of 2005 was filed by a third party seeking for a direction directing the Official Liquidator to remove the Security Guards and handover possession of the subject property. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, it is stated by the third party that, M/s. Dev Sugars Limited(in Liquidation) was ordered to be wound up in C.P.No.170 of 1995 and C.P.No.35 of 1997 by an order dated 16-09-1999. The first respondent Official Liquidator was appointed as the Liquidator of the said company. The Official Liquidator took possession of the assets of the company situated at Harige Village, Shimogo District, Karnatka on 28-04-1999 in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and Chief Manager of State Bank of Mysore, a secured Creditor of the Company.

3. State Bank of Mysore extended financial assistance to the Company and secured their outstanding dues. The Bank filed O.A.No.440 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,31,78,5555. The said O.A was decreed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal(DRT) and the Recovery Officer in consultation with the Bank issued an official notice for sale of the properties in various news papers on 24-07-2005, fixing the date of auction as 11-08-2005. The first respondent/official liquidator herein was a party before the Debt Recovery Tribubnal, Bangalore. In fact, the Official Liquidator raised his objections before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and only thereafter, the auction was directed to be held by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The applicant herein participated in the auction and his offer of Rs.10.25 Crores being the highest was accepted by the Recovery Officer. The applicant deposited 25% of Rs.10.25 Crores on the same day and the balance amounts also was deposited in time as directed by the Tribunal.

4. No one challenged the auction and thereofre, it became final resulting in the sale being confirmed by the Recovery Officer on 12-09-2005. A confirmation of sale letter was also issued to the applicant. It is further stated by the applicant that the State Bank of Mysore obtained prior permission before this Court for selling the properties of the Company. After the issue of the sale confirmation letter, the applicant approached the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the property of the Company in liquidation. But, no auction has been taken by the Official Liquidator in this regard causing irreparable loss to the applicant. It is also Pointed out by the applicant that the DRT, by letter dated 210. 2005 written to the Official Liquidator, directed the Official Liquidator to withdraw the security personnel appointed by him to enable the DRT to hand over possession of the property. The Recovery Officer also wrote a letter dated 23.09.2005 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to provide securities for the properties of the company in liquidation. A Receiver was also appointed by the Recovery Officer to hand over possession. Hence the applicant herein, who is the Auction purchaser of the property, filed C.A.No.1811 of 2005 for the above said relief.

5. When C.A.No.1811 of 2005 was pending before this Court, C.A.No.250 of 2006 was filed by M/s. Thungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangha, represented by its president to implead them as a party in that application. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, it is stated by the President of the Sangha that the State Bank of Mysore approached this Court for permission and this Court in C.A.No.1251 of 1999 permitted the Bank on 10.03.2000 in O.A.No.440 of 1997 and O.A.No.1300 of 1997 by imposing a condition that the leave granted is subject to the condition that the Official Liquidator is impleaded and no coercive steps are taken against the assets of the company during or after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The members of the Sangh were appointed as Security men by the Official Liqui

















































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top