JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of July, 2022 This writ petition has been filed challenging the proposed sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner through Ext.P2 sale notice issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated by the Bank for sale of the property belonging to the petitioner, who is a guarantor in respect of a loan availed by his brother Pradeep Kumar, is completely illegal and unsustainable. Primarily, it is contended that the property of the petitioner is being sold for a throw away price and the reserve price fixed in respect of the property was fixed as per the valuation obtained by the Bank in the year 2019. It is submitted that no proper valuation was taken before putting the property for sale. It is also submitted that the property that is being brought to sale by Ext. P2 is a vegetable shop belonging to the mother of the petitioner and this is the only source of livelihood as far as the petitioner is concerned.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the loan in respect of which recovery proceedings have been initiated was availed by the brother of the petitioner, one Pradeep Kumar, who has approached this court in W.P.(C) No. 27185 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 20.12.2021 permitting him to pay the overdue amount of Rs. 4,07,000/- in 15 monthly instalments along with regular EMIs etc. It is submitted that, after obtaining that judgment, not a single rupee has been paid towards the liability. It is further submitted that though the principal borrower approached the Tribunal for interim relief, the Tribunal on consideration of the matter did not grant any interim relief. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the property of the petitioner is sold at a meagre price is baseless as the Bank had taken valuation before fixing the reserve price. It is also stated that the total liability is in excess of Rs.2.5 Crores and no indulgence whatsoever can be shown to the petitioner as several earlier offers to settle the liability has not been adhered to by the petitioner and the principal borrower.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is willing to remit Rs.7,70,000/-, the amount for which the property of the petitioner has been sold.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank would submit that considering the earlier conduct of the principal borrower, the offer is not genuine and need not be considered in these proceedings.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the respondent Bank. I must also note that the brother of the petitioner, who is the principal borrower had earlier approached this court and this court had entertained that application and permitted the principal borrower to remit a sum of Rs.4,07,000/-, which was stated to be the overdue as on the date of disposal of that writ petition, in 15 equal monthly instalments. The principal borrower and the petitioner have not shown their bona fides by not remitting a single rupee as per the earlier judgment of this court. That apart, the principal borrower has already approached the Tribunal. The total liability towards the Bank is huge. Therefore, I cannot permit the petitioner to stall further proceedings on payment of the amount received by the Bank through sale of his properties.

Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Bank with any proposal and notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, it is open to the respondent Bank to consider any such proposal that may be put forth by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits any proposal for settlement of the liabilities on or before 5 p.m. on 18.07.2022, a decision shall be taken