HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION Nos.23028 OF 2018 AND 3553 OF 2019

COMMON ORDER

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

While the Asset Reconstruction Company has come up with the first writ petition challenging an interim stay of further proceedings granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in a pending appeal, the auction purchaser has come up with the second writ petition, seeking a direction for removal of the movable items from the land and building, so that they could enjoy the property that was purchased by them.

2. Heard Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the Asset Reconstruction Company, Mr. L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel appearing for the borrower, and Mr. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser.

3. The case on hand has a checkered history, the relevant portion of which alone is extracted as follows:

(i) The account of the borrower became a Non Performing Asset way back in the year 2012, leading to the Canara Bank issuing a demand notice under Section 13(2) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) on 02.06.2012 for recovery of a sum of more than Rs.45.00 crores.

(ii) The bank also issued a possession notice and took symbolic possession in November, 2012.

(iii) Simultaneously, the bank filed an application in O.A. No.125 of 2014 under Section 19 the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for recovery of dues. (iv) During the pendency of the original application and the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Canara Bank assigned the debt in favour of the Asset Reconstruction Company on 28.03.2014.

(v) Thereafter, the bank obtained an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 30.03.2016.

(vi) The borrower filed an appeal in S.A. No.180 of 2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.10.2016.

(vii) Thereafter, the Asset Reconstruction Company issued a sale notice dated 21.10.2016.

(viii) The borrower approached this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P. No.44265 of 2016 and obtained a small reprieve.

As a consequence, the auction failed.

(ix) A fresh sale notice was issued on 04.01.2017, but the same also failed.

(x) Thereafter, a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal was made on 09.02.2017, but the same was rejected on 30.03.2017.

The second OTS proposal was made in April, 2017 and was also rejected.

(xi) Thereafter, a fresh sale notice was issued on 31.08.2017 fixing the auction on 22.09.2017. As against the reserve price of Rs.42.87 crores, the highest bidder offered Rs.53.80 crores. Therefore, the auction was finalized and the petitioner in the second writ petition paid the entire amount. They were issued with a sale certificate and it was registered on 11.12.2017.

(xii) Even after recovery of Rs.53.80 crores, there was still a balance left to be recovered from the borrower. Therefore, the Asset Reconstruction Company issued a fresh demand notice on 20.12.2017. A possession notice followed on 19.04.2018. It was in respect of movables.

(xiii) Challenging the possession notice in respect of the movables, the borrower filed S.A. No.224 of 2018 and sought stay of sale. The application for stay in I.A. No.2419 of 2018 in S.A. No.224 of 2018 was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the order dated 02.07.2018, on the ground that the proceedings as against the movables was time barred.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A. No.2419 of 2018 holding the initiation of measures against the movables and the scrap as time barred, the Asset Reconstruction Company has come up with W.P. No.23028 of 2018.

5. In the meantime, caught in between the secured creditor and the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the auction purchaser, who got