Court of the Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

SA No.-111/2021
1. Mrs. Kanchan Garg wife of Sh. Ashok
Kumar resident of House no. 818, Sector -
11, Panchkula.
2. Dr. Cares Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. through its
Director Smt. Kanchan Garg, Showroom
No.1/a, Ground Floor, SCO NO.5, Motia
Plaza, Baddi, District Solan, HP.
.........Applicants
Versus
1. ASREC (India) Limited through its
Managing Director, Apra Tower, 4th Floor,
402, SCO No. 130-131-132, Feroze Gandhi
Market, Ludhiana, Punjab.
2. Authorized officer, ASREC (India) Limited,
Apra Tower, 4th Floor, 402, SCO no. 130-
131-132, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiyana,
Punjab.
........Respondents
Present:-
Shri D.K. Singhal and Sh. Rahul Garg, Counsel for
the Applicant
Smt. Usha Singh, Counsel for Respondents

(Final Order)
(15.09.2021)

This S.A. was filed on 09.08.2021 by the S.A.

Applicants - Mrs. Kanchan Garg W/o Sh. Ashok
Kumar R/o House No. 818, Sector-11, Panchkula
i.e. Applicant No. 1 and Dr. Cares Healthcare Pvt.
Ltd. i.e. Applicant No. 2 through its Director Mrs.
Kanchan Garg, Applicant No. 2.

As per facts of this case, a firm namely M/s

Cheminova Pharmaceuticals situated at 15, IDA,

1
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

Balanagar, Hyderabad was availing credit facilities

from erstshile State Bank of Hyderabad and in
order to secure the said credit facilities, the
borrower mortgaged the immovable properties i.e.
Factory at 81/12, 82/12A, HPSIDC, Baddi,
District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and as the
account was declared as NPA, the demand notice
was issued on 31.08.2012 by erstwhile State Bank
of Hyderabad, calling upon the borrowers to repay
the entire outstanding amount of Rs.
25,30,40,000/- with future interest within 60 days
time. A copy of demand notice dt. 01.07.2021 is at
Annexure-A-1.

It is also mentioned in the S.A. that the credit

facilities were assigned by State Bank of
Hyderabad in favour of Respondent No. 1 through
Assignment Agreement Dt. 30.03.2015 and the
copy of said deed of assignment is at Annexure-A-
2.

During the course of proceedings initiated by the

Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 came into
contact with Applicants and apprised that the
Respondents are intending to sell the mortgaged
property, situated at 81/12, 82/12A, HPSIDC,
Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh
(hereinafter referred as subject property), through
private treaty and in furtherance of that talk
between Applicants and Respondent No. 2, the
Applicant No. 1, offered to purchase the said
property for an amount of Rs. 4,01,00,000/- vide
Letter dt. 24.06.2021 (Annexure-A-3) and paid an
amount of Rs. 20.00 Lac through RTGS and
remaining amount of Rs. 30.00 Lac was also paid

2
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

through cheque but on the consecutive dates the

amount was transferred through RTGS and so the
cheque was given back by Respondent No. 2 to
present Applicant No. 1 and as per conditions, an
amount of Rs. 50.00 Lac was deposited as earnest
money against the offer of an amount of Rs.
4,01,00,000/- given vide Letter dt. 24.06.2021.

As per Letter dt. 24.06.2021, (Annexure-

A-3) a request was made by the S.A. Applicant to
issue consent/confirmation letter in the name of
M/s Dr. Cares Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Applicant
No. 2, with regard to sale of the mortgaged
property in question.

As per para VIII of the S.A. it is alleged that the

Respondent No. 2 did not convey their approval
received by Head Office and so the Applicant sent
a detailed e-mail on 16.07.2021 to Respondent No.
2 and to the Managing Director of Respondent No.
1 but again no reply was given and so an e-mail
dt. 02.08.2021 was again forwarded to the
Respondents, copies of the e-mails are at
Annexure-A-4 & A-5.

As per para IX of the S.A., the Applicant received a

letter dt. 03.08.2021, confirming therein the sale
of mortgaged property in favour of the Applicant
and intimated that the balance amount of Rs. 3.51
Crore is to be deposited within 30 days time. Copy
this letter is at Annexure-A-6.

As per para X of the S.A., It is submitted that vide

letter dt. 01.07.2021, Annexure-A-7 a Sale Notice
was forwarded in favour of the borrowers and it
was a 30 days Sale Notice through which, the

3
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

subject property was put to sell on 12.08.2021, by

way of private treaty.

The Applicant claims that he was having sufficient

amount in different accounts, which was to be
paid and statement of accounts are enclosed at
Annexure-A.8.

Later on, an I.A. No. 515/2021 was filed by the

S.A. Applicant, in which it was submitted that now
the Respondents are going to sell the subject
property for an amount of Rs. 4.02 Crore to some
other proposed buyers and therefore, they
requested/asked, the present Applicant to
participate in the inter-se bidding. The Letter dt.
11.08.2021 is filed along with Interim Application
and in this letter the Authorized Officer of the
Respondents, having Office at New Delhi informed
to the Applicant No. 2 that they are having
interested buyer, who is ready to purchase the
subject property for an amount of Rs. 4.02 Crore
and as the Applicant has deposited an amount of
Rs. 50.00 Lac against the officer of Rs. 4.01 Crore,
now they are required to participate in the inter-se
bidding through private treaty to be conducted on
18.08.2021 at 11.00 AM. The I.A. No. 515/2021
was filed with an objection that vide Letter dt.
03.08.2021 issued by the Respondents, the sale
was confirmed in their favour and so Respondents
cannot proceed ahead for sale of the subject
property through private treaty with some other
interested/proposed buyers.

After hearing arguments on IA No. 515/2021, and

order was passed by this Tribunal on 17.08.2021
and the respondents were directed to not confirm

4
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

the sale, and respondents were directed to

produce documents:-

1. Copy of “Approval of Head Office”, as

mentioned in letter dated 24.06.2021,
addressed to applicant.
2. Any document issued by respondent,
which can show that the deal of the
property, as per private treaty, they
have to come to an end so there was a
necessity to go ahead for interse
bidding.

But no documents as directed above filed on

record.

As per reply filed by the respondents it is

submitted that this SA is filed based on concocted
facts, based on false and fabricated documents as
in Para-E of the reply it is admitted that a letter
dated NIL confirming the receiving of Rs. 50 Lacs
as earnest money for sale of subject property but
this letter is annexed with the SA as Annexure A-
6, mentioning the date of letter as 03.08.2021 and
this amount to forgery and fabrications. Copy of
said letter having no date, is enclosed with the
reply as Annexure R-I.

Another objection is with regard to letter

dated 24.06.2021, at Annexure A-3, filed
alongwith the S.A. and it is alleged that the noting
dated 29.06.2021 “Please issue the
consent/confirmation letter in the name of the
M/s Cares Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, whereas this
noting is not mentioned in the letter sent by SA
applicant & copy of the same is Annexure R-2 at

5
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

alongwith the reply. So it was also argued that,

the noting dated 29.06.2021, is also part of
forgery.

In the brief facts as mentioned in the reply,

it is mentioned that one firm namely M/S Shree
Shyam Pharma, vide letter dated 16.06.2021,
expressed their intention to purchase the subject
property for an amount of Rs. 3,52,00,000/-
alongwith an upfront amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-
and the respondents vide letter dated 24.06.2021,
considered the expressions subject to compliance
of the provisions of SARFEASI, including serving
30 days sale notice. Copy of letter dated
14.06.2021 & 24.06.2021 are at Annexure R-4
(Colly) on 24.06.2021, the applicant also
expressed her intention to purchase, the subject
property for an amount of Rs. 4.01 Crore, with an
upfront amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- and agreed to
pay balance amount of Rs. 3.51 Crore, within 30
days.

In Para 3 to the reply, it is mentioned that

the respondents acknowledged the interest of SA,
applicant, mentioning that the approval would be
subject to acceptance of Head Office. Copy of letter
dated 24.06.2021 is at Annexure R-5.

As per reply on 30.06.2021, respondent

wrote a letter to M/s Shree Shyam Phare,
informing about, having a better buyer and asked
them to reconsider their earlier after on or before
08.07.2021, reserving right of inter-se building.
Copy of letter is at Annexure R-6. Later on a Sale
Notice dated 01.07.2021 was issued in favour of
borrower firm, informing, them about the sale of

6
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

subject property, by way for Private Treaty on

12.08.2021. Copy of said sale Notice is at
Annexure R-7. In the meanwhile, the earlier
proposed buyer gave a letter on 05.07.2021,
enhancing the rate to Rs. 4.02 Crore and showed
their interest to participate in the inter-se bidding.
Copy of letter dated 05.07.2021, is at Annexure R-
8.

Main ground which is under challenge, in

this SA, is that the SA applicant gave a proposal to
purchase the subject property for an amount of
Rs. 4.01 Core and deposited an amount of Rs.
50.00.000/- as earnest money. As per applicant,
vide letter dated 03.08.2021 (Annexure A-6),
respondents gave a confirmation letter, intimating
confirmation of sale in their favour but on
11.08.2021 (Annexure R-11) was forwarded by
respondents to participate in inter-se building to
be held on 18.08.2021 at 11AM onwards, as they
have another proposal buyer for Rs. 4.02 Crore. It
is one of the arguments on behalf of the Ld.
Counsel for the applicant that vide letter dated
03.08.202, the respondent confirmed the sale in
their favour and gave 30 days time to deposit
remaining amount and after deposit of remaining
amount, sale certificate will be issued within 2
days and possession will be handed over same
day, alongwith original documents.

As mentioned in the reply to the SA, the

grounds taken by SA applicant were strongly
opposed by ld. Counsel for Respondent-FI on the
ground that the letter dated 03.08.2021 is a forged
document, as the letter was undated, letter dated

7
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

24.06.2021 do have a forged endorsement and an

objection was taken about the formation of ,
applicant firm by Respondent No. 2 as a company
on 06.07.2021, whereas they gave proposal on
24.06.2021, letters, purported to the written by
Mrs. Kanchan Garg, were signed by Mr. Ashok
Kumar, upfront amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was
deposited through RTG’s from M/S Motia
Township Pvt. Ltd and the proof with regard to
availability of remaining amount is bogus, as the
applicant gave statements of accounts of different
firm and individuals but failed to filed statement of
account either of any of the two applicants.
Accordingly, it was argued on behalf of the
applicant that they be allowed to go for inter se
bidding for sale of subject property as sale was
never confirmed in favour of the SA applicant and
they have file this SA based on forged and
fabricated documents.

Heard arguments and perused the record.

From the records available in the file following

facts are clear which are required for
consideration for reaching on a preferable
conclusion:-

1. On 24.06.2021, SA applicant No.1 wrote a

letter (Annexure A-3) showing interest in
purchasing of subject property for an
amount of Rs.4.01 crores, letter is signed by
Mr. Ashok Kumar for the applicant No.1,
and this letter is received by Mr. Narendar
Singh, Authorized Officer of ASREC,
Respondent no. 2.

8
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

As per reply filed by respondents noting

dated 29.06.2021 in the handwriting of Mr.
Ashok Kumar is a forged because as per
copy filed by them at Annexure R-2, do not
have such endorsement.

2. On 24.06.2021 it is Mr. Narendar Singh,

Chief Manager, Legal of ASREC, who wrote a
letter to Mrs. Kanchan Garg (Annexure A-4)
in which it is mentioned that the offer of
Rs.4.01 Crore is received by them along with
earnest money of Rs.50,00,000/- and it was
informed that “After approval of the Head
Office the remaining amount of Rs.3.51
Crore will be deposited within 30 days”
Here it is necessary to clarify that Mr.
Narendar Singh being Chief Manager, Legal
wrote this letter from the office of respondent
at Ludhiana Branch.
3. On 16.07.2021 and on 02.08.2021 applicant
sent two emails (Annexure A-5) asking for
confirmation of sale.
4. As per S.A. applicant they received a letter
dated 03.08.2021 from Mr. Narendar Singh,
Chief Manager, Legal at ASREC at Ludhiana
Branch, informing about confirmation of sale
and directed the applicant to deposit balance
amount within 30 days and after receiving of
balance amount sale certificate will be
issued and possession along with original
documents will be given.
Controversy of this case is on this
letter as the respondent says that this letter
is undated and applicant committed forgery
by date of 03.08.2021 on this letter.

9
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

In support of this contention

respondent No.2 filed an affidavit dated
23.08.2021 and copy of undated letter copy
of forged letter screenshot of mobile phone
showing him on leave on 03.08.2021at 9:18
am and copies of medical certificates/reports
at Baghpat UP are also enclosed with this
affidavit.
As per Para 3 of this affidavit, fact of
letter dated 24.06.2021 given by the
applicant is admitted in which they gave
offer of Rs.4.01 Crore with earnest money of
Rs.50,00,000/- and on 25.06.2021 during
the visit of applicants he gave a undated
letter of confirmation copy of which is at
Annexure P-5.
In Para 5 of this affidavit Mr. Narendar
Singh states that there was ambiguity in the
status of applicant and the firm, so he asked
for additional documents and KYC for
confirmation and in Para 6 he stated that
after receiving instructions from respondent
No.1, he informed to applicant No.1 to
participate in inter se bidding.
In Para 8 of this affidavit it is
submitted that he was on leave since
31.07.2021 to 03.08.2021 and so writing
any letter on 03.08.2021 is not possible.
As per reply filed by respondent No.1,
the reply is argued by Sh. Ajay Goyal, Chief
Manager, Legal ASREC having its regd.
Office at Hemkunt Chamber, 89 Nehru
Place, New Delhi. Reply was filed on
23.08.2021 and affidavits of both the

10
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

respondents were attested by the same

Notary Public.
5. As per reply filed by respondent No.1 they
received an offer of M/s Shree Shyam
through letter dated 16.06.2021 (Annexure
R-4) giving an offer of Rs.3.52 Crore for
purchase of subject property but after
having received an offer of applicants for
Rs.4.01 Crore they wrote a letter on
30.06.2021 in increase the offer as they
received offer of Rs.4.01 Crore. Copy of letter
dated 30.06.2021 is at Annexure R-6.
6. On 05.09.2021, Mr Shree Shyam Phare gave
an offer of Rs.4.02 Crore and also showed
their interest in inter se bidding. Copy of
letter is at Annexure R-7.

Now the point for determination is that

whether, the sale of subject property was
confirmed by any of the Respondents or not.

From the perusal of record and as discussed as

above, it is clear that M/s Shree Shyam
Pharma gave an offer through Letter dt.
16.06.2021 (Annexure-R-4) and, this offer was
given to Respondent No. 1, having office at New
Delhi and not at Chandigarh.

From, Letter dt. 24.06.2021 (Annexure-A.3), it

is clear that the present Applicant gave an offer
to purchase, the subject property for an
amount of Rs. 4.01 Crore to the Respondent
No. 2 at their Ludhiana Office.

The offer dt. 24.06.2021, (Annexure-A.3), was

acknowledged by Respondent No. 2, through

11
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

Letter dt. 24.06.2021 (Annexure-A.4) and there

is no evidence on record filed by either of the
Respondents that the offer of Applicant (SA)
was conveyed by Respondent No. 2 to
Respondent No. 1, as it is mentioned in this
Letter that “After approval of Head Office, the
remaining amount of Rs. 3.51 Crore will be
deposited within 30 days”.

The proposal/offer of S.A. Applicant was

pending with Respondent No. 2, till, when a
Letter dt. 11.08.2021 (Annexure-R.11) was
forwarded by Respondent No. 1 (having office at
Delhi), about inter-se bidding, as they received
an offer of higher amount.

In between, the S.A. Applicant forwarded two e-

mails, i.e. on 16.07.2021 and on 02.08.2021, to
Respondent No. 2 but, Respondents failed to
file any record/document, which can prove that
Respondent No. 2, replied to these e-mails or
forwarded these mails to his competent
authority/head office i.e. Respondent No. 1
having office at New Delhi.

In the affidavit filed by Mr. Narendra Singh dt.

23.12.2021, at para 5, it is the first time, when
Mr. Narendra Singh, states that there was an
ambiguity as regard to the status of the
Applicant and so he sought clarify and
additional documents including KYC for
confirmation on the legal status of the
intending bidder.

But it is important to mention here that the

submission made in Para 5 of the Affidavit, is

12
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

based totally on oral facts and no Letter etc. is

placed on record to prove that Respondent No.
2 asked, the Applicant to clarify their status
and to file KYC, whereas, the Respondent No. 1,
gave an offer to S.A. Applicant, to participate in
the bid, through Letter dt. 11.08.2021, and
without clarifying any ambiguity , if any.

So, in the sale of subject property Respondent

No. 1, was dealing with M/s Shree Shyam
Pharma, through Letters at Annexure-R.4
(Colly. Annexure-R.6, R.8 and R.11). and
Respondent No. 2 Mr. Narendra Singh was
dealing with the present Applicant through
Letters dt. 24.06.2021 (A.1 & R.1), R-5 and
written between both the parties.

It is also clear from the record that a letter was

written by Respondent No. 2, Mr. Narendra
Singh but as claimed by him, it was undated
and as he was on leave on 03.08.2021, so
writing any letter on 03.08.2021, is not
possible, whereas, it is claimed by the Applicant
that, he received this letter, having a date of
03.08.2021 and this letter was, confirming the
sale of subject property, in their favour.

In the reply filed by both the Respondent, the

letter at Annexure A-1 is claimed as undated
and it is alleged that by putting date of
03.08.2021, on this letter, Applicants
committed forgery and they fabricated this
documents.

The Language of the Letter at Annexure-A.1. &

R.1 , is reproduced here under for more clarity:-

13
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

Sub.:- Confirmation of Rs. 50 Lacs. As earnest

money for the sale of M/s Chemnova
Pharmaceutical. Baddi (Himachal Pradesh).
Dear Sir,
We have received an offer of Rs. 4.01 Cr from
you for the sale of the above property. We have
received an earnest money of Rs. 50 Lacs out of
which Rs. 20.00 Lac has been received through
RTGS dated 24.06.2021 and Rs. 30.00 Lacs
received has to be deposited by your within 30
days. After receiving the balance amount the
sale certificate will be issued within 2 days and
possession will handed over same day
alongwith original documents.
Here, it is important to mention, that Sale
Notice of the subject property dt. 01.07.2021
(Annexure-R.7) was issued from the corporate
office of Respondents, situated at Mumbai, and
this was first 30 days Sale Notice, in which, it
was informed to the borrowers/guarantors, that
the subject property, will be put to sale through
private treaty on 12.08.2021.

Mr. Narendra Pratap Sing, Respondent No. 2,

denied to have issued Letter at Annexure- A.1
& R.1, on the ground, that he was on leave on
03.08.2021 but now the question arises, that
what was the need to write this letter by him, to
the present S.A. Applicant, if he was not willing
or he was not intending to write this letter and
if wrote this letter as undated (as claimed in the
affidavit filed by him) in para 4, then he should
have to inform to his Delhi Office as well as to
corporate office at Mumbai.

As discussed earlier, M/s Shree Shyam

Pharma, was dealing with the Respondent No.
1, S.A. Applicant was dealing with Respondent
No. 2 and Sale Notice was issued by the

14
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

corporate office at Mumbai by Authorised

Officer, Sh. Ravindra Amin and it is also clear
from the record that letter, (though claimed as
undated by Respondent No. 2) was given by
Respondent No. 2, Mr. Narendra Singh, so it is
established that the said letter was issued as a
confirmation of sale in favour of S.A. Applicant,
because, an Authorized Officer of Secured
Creditor, is not supposed to issue any letter,
using language of confirmation of sale to
anyone because in para 4 of the affidavit, filed
by Mr. Narendra Singh, admits that he issued
an undated confirmation letter in confirmation
of Letter dt. 24.06.2021.”

So, if undated Letter was issued in

continuation of Letter dt. 24.06.2021, as
argued and admitted in Affidavit, then the
earnest money deposited by the S.A. Applicant
was required to be forfeited in the light of Para
9(5) of Rule of 2002 as the balance amount
was not deposited within 30 days time, but the
Applicant was again given an opportunity to
participate in inter-se bidding as the
Respondent No. 1 got a better offer.

From, the overall facts and records and

evidence available on record, it is established
that, there was a strong communication gap
between both the Respondents, with regard to
decision, being taken by them, for sale of the
subject property.

At first instance, Respondents got an offer of

Rs. 3.51 crore then they got an officer of Rs.
4.01 Crore, from S.A. Applicant and after that

15
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

they again got an offer of Rs. 4.02 Crore from

earlier bidder and so the Respondent No. 1
decided to go for inter-se biding. Such,
incidents goes to show the Respondents are
behaving like a property dealer, standing in the
open market, selling the property, to any buyer,
who comes with high proposal but I am of the
considered view that while doing so, the
Respondents are required to follow the
provisions of Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules of 2002 and they cannot proceed as per
their own terms.

I am of the considered view that the Applicants

kept pending proposal of Shree Shyam Pharma,
who deposited an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-
and obtained an deposited earnest money of Rs.
50,00,000/- who offer from present applicant
and without deciding the fate of sale in favour
of M/s Shree Shyam Pharma now trying to sell
the subject property to them and still there is
hope that if they got a new buyer with an offer
of high amount, they may go for next inter-se
bidding, this process will continue endlessly
but, I must say, that this is not the object of the
SARFAESI Act of 2002 and Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules of 2002 made thereunder.

I am of the considered view that the plea taken

by Respondent no. 2 that he issued a undated
letter, in favour of S.A. applicant is nothing but
this plea is based on after thought story
because now the respondent no. 1 got an offer
of high amount and so respondent no. 2, is in
under pressure. No documentary letter is

16
 Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh

placed on record, which can prove that any

‘Sale confirmation letter’ was issued in favour of
M/s Shree Shyam Pharma and therefore, it is
clear that now respondent no. 2, Mr. Narender
Singh is trying to skip from his responsibility
because he issued letter dated 03.08.2021,
confirming the sale is favour of S.A., applicant
which is a genuine letter, as he was not
supposed to issue such letter, without giving
any date.

Accordingly, following order is passed:-

1. The sale of the subject property is confirmed

in favour of S.A. applicant.
2. Earnest money of Rs. 50,00,000/- is with the
respondents since 24/25.06.2021 and so the
applicant is hereby directed to deposit
remaining amount within three working days
from today.
3. The respondents shall handover peaceful
possession and title deeds of the subject
property in favour of the applicant within two
working days from the date of deposit of
remaining amount.

Accordingly, this Securitization application

stands disposed off with above said directions.

Copy of this order be given free to the

concerned parties.

Put up before Registrar for compliance. After

compliance file be consigned to record as per
rules.

(Vivek Saxena)
Presiding Officer
DRT, Jaipur
(Additional Charge DRT-1 Chandigarh)

17