TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the 5th respondent, purchaser of the property, and standing counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department, the 6th respondent. 2. Appellant stood as guarantor for a loan of ₹ 30 lakhs granted by the respondent-Bank to an Export Firm on 8.3.2001. When the borrower defaulted payment, the Bank on 31.12.2001 filed O.A.No. 31 of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The amount claimed by the Bank was something around ₹ 34 lakhs. Even though OA did not progress for around 5 years, the Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 20.2.2007. Immediately the Bank made publication in the newspapers on 22.2.2007 and took over symbolic possession by putting a board i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have taken place within six weeks from 25.9.2007 that is by 10th November, 2007. On the other hand, the Bank waited for disposal of the appeal by the DRT and on the day following the day of dismissal of the appeal by the DRT, opened the tender received from the fifth respondent and accepted the same. While the reserve price fixed was ₹ 1.25 crores, the purchase price offered by the 5th respondent was ₹ 1,27,00, 101/-. Even though only one tender was received and this Court had extended the sale by six weeks from 25.9.2007, the Bank had not renotified the sale or even extended the time for receipt of fresh tenders. On the other hand, without doing anything further pursuant to judgment, the sole tender received from the 5th resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remedy has expired. Even though counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the same, we are inclined to accept appellants' contention because we are satisfied that the sale was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and that is the reason why WPC was admitted and stay against all proceedings was granted by this Court. It is settled position that High Court in it's discretionary jurisdiction can entertain Writ Petition ignoring alternate remedy available and after keeping the matter pending for long and after lapse of the time provided for seeking alternate remedy, it would not be proper for this Court to relegate the party to alternate remedy. Therefore in our view, the learned single Judge should have considered the pleadings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely after the expiry of six weeks granted by this Court. On the other hand, the sale was really conducted on 28.12.2007 that is one year beyond the time granted by this Court in Ext.P15 judgment. Further, it is admitted that the Bank has not issued any fresh publication or extended time for receipt of tenders, even though sale was made beyond one year and three months from the last date originally notified for sale of the property through receipt of tenders. It is a known fact that price of the property was increasing in an unprecedented level during this period and Bank very well knew that the price of notified property would have substantially gone up when they opened the tender, which is one year and seven month after the last date fixed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... very low amount of ₹ 1.27 crores , and the only loser is the appellant. In the above circumstances, we feel the sale is liable to be set side on the above grounds. However, we feel the fifth respondent is entitled to lumpsum compensation because in our view there were lapses on the part of the appellant also at least in settling the liability under the OTS scheme which we feel is quite reasonable. Further the fifth respondent has remitted the entire sale consideration over two years back. Considering the amount remitted by the fifth respondent, which is ₹ 1,27,00,101/- and the stamp duty and registration charges of ₹ 23 lakhs paid by him, we feel appellant would be ordered to pay a lumpsum amount of ₹ 2 crores to th....