SM 1 prod.wp.6737.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6737 OF 2011 Taj Exim International Limited and another ....Petitioners Versus Bank of Baroda and another ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Harish Pandya i/b Raval Shah & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Anant B. Shinde for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Verma for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, J.J. DATED : AUGUST 20, 2011. P.C.: The challenge in these proceedings is to the legality of an order passed on 25 May 2011 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal declining to stay the sale of certain property at Daman. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has moved the Court for urgent relief since the auction sale of the property is to take place today. Both, Counsel for the Petitioners and for the Respondent Bank have requested the Court to take up the Petition for hearing. The Petition is taken up for admission and has been called out. 2. The Respondents issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 25 November 2008 claiming an amount of Rs.9.03 Crores. The Notice, it is common ground, did not reflect an amount of Rs.3.15 Crores realized from the sale of a property at Cuffe Parade. As on 31 October 2006, the SM 2 prod.wp.6737.11 amount due and payable to the Bank was Rs.5.99 Crores. A Securitisation Application under Section 17 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal upon measures being taken under Section 13 (4). On 20 July 2009 the Tribunal passed an order recording that the Petitioners had paid an amount of Rs.3.15 Crores by sale of property (at Cuffe Parade) and would cooperate in the sale of the property at Daman. On 5 February 2010, the Bank sought a clarification from the Tribunal specifically permitting it to sell the property at Daman. On 15 February 2010, the Tribunal observed that the Petitioners could not object to the sale of the property at Daman; and hence, disposed of the application accordingly. The Tribunal eventually dismissed the Securitisation Application on 25 August 2010. On 29 November 2010, the DRAT, on an application for waiver of pre-deposit, directed the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores). In the meantime, pending deposit within a stipulated time frame as set out in the order, status-quo was directed to be maintained in respect of a secured asset at New Delhi. The order of the DRAT was questioned before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. By a Judgment dated 27 January 2011, this Court modified the order of pre-deposit by requiring the Petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.1.50 Crores by 24 March 2011. This amount was deposited. 3. The Respondents had issued an advertisement on 27 March 2011 for sale of the property at Daman in April 2011. The sale could not materialize on that occasion. Accordingly, the Bank issued a fresh sale notice on 15 July 2011 for a sale which is to take place today. The Court has been moved in these writ SM 3 prod.wp.6737.11 proceedings on 16 August 2011. 4. The DRAT by its impugned order dated 25 May 2011 declined to stay the sale of the property at Daman on the ground that the record shows that as far back as on 20 July 2009 the Petitioners had agreed to the sale of the property at Daman. This was recorded in the order of the DRT which passed a further order on 15 February 2010 clarifying the earlier order. 5. The submission of the Petitioners is that (i) in view of the fact that the Petitioners have complied with the order of pre- deposit of Rs.1.50 Crore, the sale of the Daman property should be stayed; (ii) The consent of the Petitioners to the sale of the Daman property before the DRT on 20 July 2009 was subject to the offer of a one time settlement of the Petitioners being accepted. Since that offer has not been accepted the Petitioners’ property at Daman cannot be sold. 6. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has placed on record a compilation of the relevant orders and has submitted that the sale of the property at Daman was agreed to before the Tribunal. Moreover, Counsel submitted that even before the DRAT, it is evident from a reading of the order dated 29 November 2010 that the protection that was granted was in respect of the secured asset at New Delhi and not at Daman. Finally, it was urged that the Petitioners have abused the process of the Court. A fresh application was taken out before the DRT this time by a family trust and by the Second Petitioner, the trust being a guarantor. That application was dismissed by the SM 4 prod.wp.6737.11 Tribunal recently on 19 August 2011; and the Tribunal declined to stay the sale of the property at Daman. 7. We have heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondents. We are of the view that no case has been made out for staying the sale of the property at Daman. The narration of facts would indicate that the Petitioners had consented to the sale of the property at Daman as far back as on 20 July 2009. The order of Tribunal dated 20 July 2009 was further clarified on 15 February 2010. The reading of the order of the DRAT dated 29 November 2010 on the application for waiver of pre-deposit would also indicate that status-quo was granted, pending compliance with the order of pre-deposit in respect of the secured asset at Delhi. In these circumstances, the entitlement of the Bank to sell the property at Daman was never in dispute. The orders passed by the DRAT on 20 July 2009 and 15 February 2010 attained finality. The DRAT passed the impugned order on 25 May 2011 declining to stay the sale of the property at Daman. These proceedings have been moved only on 16 August 2011. Moreover, it has been stated before the Court on behalf of the Respondent-Bank that the dues as of January 2011 are in the amount of Rs.13.18 Crores computed on the basis that as on 31 October 2006 an amount of Rs.6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores) was due and payable. The sale of the Daman property would result in realization of proceeds which would go to the credit of the outstanding dues. For all these reasons, we are of the view that no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted. The Petition is dismissed. SM 5 prod.wp.6737.11 8. We, however, clarify that we are keeping all the rights and contentions open to be urged before the DRAT and the parties are at liberty to move for expeditious hearing of the appeal. (A. A. SAYED, J.) (DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)