and/or possession of the said Flat to the Appellants. The Respondents had agreed to deposit a sum of ₹45,000,000/-in settlement of the debt. The property was valued and the market value was assessed as ₹70,200,000/-the realizable value at ₹63,180,000/-and the distress value was assessed at ₹56,160,000/-the Appellants had insisted on not accepting the offer to settle the debt in view of the higher value of the property. The Appellants submitted that Flat No. 401 would fetch a sum of ₹70,200,000/- while they had a buyer for the other asset namely plot No. 131 for a sum of ₹29,464,000/-. The Appellants insisted that they would not sell the property below the aforesaid distress value. However, the Appellants were unable to produce the proposed buyers, and in view of the fact that the interest was accruing, the Ld. Presiding Officer passed the impugned order directing the Respondents to hand over possession of the flat to the Appellants and froze the interest as the Appellants were insisting on not selling the flat below the reserve price of ₹56,160,000/-
