IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12648 of 2008 M/s Mahakali Milling Company Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Digha Ghat, Patna through its Managing Director, Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, s/o late Sohan Lal Gupta, s/o late Sohan Lal Gupta, Resident of 68- A, Pataliputra Colony, P S -Pataliputra, District-Patna -Petitioner Versus 1 The State Bank of India, Banking Company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Bhikajee Cama Road, Mumbai through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2 The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Rehabilitation and Recovery Branch, 02nd Floor, Patna Main Branch, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800 001 3 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Pataliputra, Patna 4 The State of Bihar through the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bihar, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate For the respondent-Bank : Mr Aditya Sharan, Advocate *** 5 24.11.2008 The petitioner-Company had incurred debts to the State Bank of India. It defaulted. There was a negotiated settlement at about Rs 90 lacs this year itself. Unfortunately, the Managing Director of the Company became critically ill and had to undergo renal transplantation and is still unwell. The negotiated settlement could not be, thus, acted upon. Further steps for settlement could not be taken. It is asserted that the property, which is being sought to be sold for realization of dues, is situated at Digha Ghat at Patna and is a very valuable piece of land. The petitioner asserts that first proclamation of sale (Annexure-3) was issued in which reserve price was fixed at Rs 1 crore. This was issued 2 on 21st of April 2008. When no one turned up, a fresh proclamation was issued on the 23rd of June 2008 (Annexure-4) wherein the reserve price has been brought down to Rs 80 lacs without any justification. Inspite of opportunity granted by this Court, petitioner could not bring about any fresh settlement with the Bank. Petitioner now restricts his relief only to the fact that the Bank should get a proper valuation done by its approved valuer of the property in question taking into account the Government rate fixed as well and considering the same, the Recovery Officer, DRT should fix a fresh reserve price in proclamation to be issued again. This is of course subject to any settlement which the parties could arrive in the meantime. Court has no objection to the relief in the manner as noted above being granted to the petitioner. Let Bank get the property valued accordingly as noted above with liberty to the parties to negotiate for settlement in the meantime. In case no negotiated settlement is arrived at, DRT would proceed to sell the property in question taking into account the current valuation report submitted by the Bank and fixing a reserve price considering the same. With these observations, the writ application stands disposed of. As fresh proclamations have now to be issued, the proclamations, issued earlier, are rendered infructuous. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)