TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouse For short, "Gun House" or "respondent", who appears in person and Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned amicus curiae. The facts of the present case are peculiar. In 1996, Saeedul Hasan Khan, sole proprietor of the Gun House took loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) from the Cooperative Bank to establish a firearms business. The loan was secured by mortgaging immovable property Measuring 3300 square feet, situated at Plot Nos. 25 and 26, Khasra no. 419, Nagaria, Radhagram Yojna, Thakurganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (for short, "the property"). On 30.02.2002, the loan was declared a Non-Performing Asset, as an amount of Rs.2,39,812.41 (rupees two lakhs thirty nine thousand eight hundred twelve and forty one paisa only) was due and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paisa only). The respondent made initial payment of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only), but failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,86,860/- (rupees five lakhs eighty six thousand eight hundred sixty only), which was due and payable on or before 29.03.2012. On 07.04.2012, the appellant informed the respondent that the OTS proposal stood revoked and the respondent was as on 31.03.2012 liable to pay Rs.15,91,424/- (rupees fifteen lakhs ninety one thousand four hundred twenty four only). On 14.07.2012, the appellant took possession of the property, and inventory of the immovable assets was made. A valuation report estimated the value of the property to be Rs.29,70,000/- (rupees twenty nine lakhs seventy thousand only). However, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.3 in these appeals, namely, Abdul Haleem Siddiqui and had received advance of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only). Abdul Haleem Siddiqui despite service has not entered appearance before this court and is accordingly proceeded ex parte. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui had participated in the auction held on 31.12.2012 and was the highest bidder. His bid of Rs.42,00,000/- (rupees forty two lakhs only) was accepted. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui is referred to as "auction purchaser" or "Abdul Haleem Siddiqui". The respondent accepts and admits that he was also present at the auction. After the auction, the respondent had written a letter to the appellant expressing willingness to pay Rs.6,23,809/- (rupees six lakhs twenty three thousand eight hundred nine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dated 30.11.2012 was served by the appellant on the respondent. As per the appellant, after adjusting the amount due and payable by the respondent, a sum of Rs.22,53,004/- (rupees twenty two lakhs fifty three thousand and four only), is due and payable and has been with them since 21.03.2013. By letter dated 21.03.2013, the appellant had sent a cheque of the aforesaid balance amount to the respondent, which was not accepted. The respondent has relied upon the decision of this Court in Mathew Varghese v M. Amritha Kumar & Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 610, which had interpreted Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 For short, "2002 Rules", and holds that service of notice in terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the 2002 Rules is mandator....