Full Text
Date ofJudgment : 12'^ October, 2015
^ ^ - - -^th ALCHEMIST ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. Petitioner
Through : Mr. J. P. Sengh, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Jayashree Shukla and Ms. Vanessa Singh, Advocates
Through : None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI. J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated lO'*^ April, 2015 which has been upheld bythe DebtRecovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).
2. Mr. J. P. Sengh, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there are factual errors as far as the amount due is concerned and also the valuation. He further submits that even if the property at Ludhiana, Punjab is sold substantial amount will still be due and payable to the petitioner. He further submits that serious attempts have been made to sell the property at Ludhiana but no buyer is forthcoming.
3. Heard.
4. The following order was passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) "8. Heard both the parties andperused the records and I am of this view that right to property is a constitutional right and as per judgment passed by the Eon 'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ram Kishun Vs. State of UP" only that much portion of the property be sold which would
2015:DHC:11453-DB suffice to recover the dues of the bank. In the present matter, the valuation of the first property situated at Jallunder, Ludhiana is worth more than Rs.[8] Crores. This Tribunal is of the view that let respondent FI sell the property situated at Jallunder, Ludhiana after taking possession of the same. However, the respondent FI/Receiver is hereby restrainedfrom taking the physical possession of the property situated at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi." In this case, the DRT had directed the petitioner herein to sell the property at Ludhiana, Punjab at the first instanee and only after the property is sold and thereafter sell the residential house at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in case the balance amount is recoverable. This order was upheld by the DRAT. We find no ground to interfere in the aforesaid order so passed, however, we grant leave to the petitioner to plaee on the record of the DRT documents in support of the submission that serious attempts have been made to sell the property at Ludhiana, Punjab. We clarify that in case, the DRT is satisfied with the attempts so made, the DRT after hearing all parties eonsider the request of petitioner to sell the secured/mortgaged property which is available with the petitioner. The DRT will decide the application unaffected by any observation made by this Court. Writ petition along with all pending applications stand disposed ofin above terms.
OCTOBER 12, 2015 gr