Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 11071
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ
VENKATADASARIGARI RAMANJANEYA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
USHARANI C. REDDY – Respondent
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 661/2024 in T.P.(Crl.) No. 676/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gowthamn Polanki, Adv., Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv., Ms. Rashmi Kamath, Adv., M/s AG Veritas Law, AOR
Court emphasizes compliance with mediation settlements and assesses auction challenges due to property inventory.
Headnote:The court addressed non-compliance with a settlement reached during mediation. The appellant contended that due to valuable inventory, the bank's auction efforts are hindered. The court seeks a detailed report from the bank to comprehend their difficulties and scheduled further orders. The final decision mandates personal presence of the contemnors on the next date.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non-compliance with mediation settlement impacts auction process. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court seeks understanding of auction difficulties from the bank. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. contemnors required to appear in court. (Para 6 , 7) |
O R D E R
1) Since the settlement entered into before the Mediation Centre as accepted by the Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 has not been complied with in true sense and spirit, therefore, the instant proceedings for contempt is pending against the contemnors.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA D 17 a : t 2 e 7 : : 2 4 0 2 2 I 5 S . T 08.14 2) By filing counter affidavit and additional counter Reason:
affidavit, in particular, paragraphs 6 and 7, it is stated as under:
“6. I state that Canara Bank immediately issued Demand Notice dt. 01.03.2024 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 to repay a sum of Rs.24,19,89,266.15/- and even though part payment was made resulting in regularisation of the account of Indus Gene on 11.03.2024, the debt was again classified as NPA category on 28.08.2024 resulting in a second demand notice dt. 29.08.2024 U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 to repay a sum of Rs.22,25,45,423.41/-. Thereafter as Company Indus Gene was unable to make the necessary payment Canara Bank issued Possession Notice dt.05.12.2024 U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act 2002 for Schedule-I and II properties and on 13.12.2024 a Redemption Notice was issued by Canara Bank to Company Indus Gene U/s 13(8) of SARFAESI Act 2002 as a last and final opportunity to redeem and reclaim the secured assets within 30 days by discharging the liability of Rs.22,12,62,104.25/-.
7. I state that as the Canara Bank without further notice published Sale Notice dt. 05.02.2025 fixing the date of auction on 13.03.2025 of the Scheduled 1 & II Properties stating a reserve price of Rs.70.40 crores. Further, the Advocate Commissioner along with some person claiming to be the recovery agents came to the scheduled properties on 05.02.2025 who tried to take physical possession and on request served a Vacate Notice dt. 04.02.2025. As such we were constrained to file petition SA No. 470 of 2025 before the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad U/s 17 SARFAESI Act 2002 to declare the action of the Bank in issuing the Possession Notice dt. 05.12.2024 and Sale Notice dt.05.02.2025 as illegal and to declare the action of Bank in trying to take physical possession through the Advocate Commissioner Notice dt. 04.02.2025 issued as per Orders in Crl.M.P. No. 165/2025 Prl.Asst. Session Judge, Anantapuramu is illegal. The Ld. Tribunal vide Order dt.20.02.2025 passed a conditional stay order directing payment of total amount of Rs.6.7 Crores instalments.”
3) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that auction is not being fructified by the Bank because the contemnors have put the stocks of medicines of more than Rs.50 crores which are required to be exported to United States; the said issue is also emerging from the averments made in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit. Paragraph 10 is reproduced as under:
“10. I state that in the meanwhile, to ensure that the commitment made to the Contempt Petitioner and the undertaking made before this Hon’ble Court is complied with we have been working hard to sell off inventory of Rs.50.68 crores to a USA companies and finally we have succeeded to enter into a deal to dispose of our inventory in the next 3 to 4 months.”
.
4) In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the property in which medicines of more than Rs.50 crores is lying, auction of the said property along with medicine is not possible. The Bank is trying to segregate the said property and auction notice has been issued in this regard. However, to ascertain this fact and to further ascertain what are the difficulties faced by the Bank, at the first instance, taking a lenient view against the contemnors, we want to know the view point of the Bank and to understand the possible difficulties of the Bank in auction.
5)
