In a writ petition concerning an immovable property auctioned by a bank which did not exist at the stated address, the court directed the amalgamated bank to refund the sale amount and interest to the petitioner.
Direction to refund Rs.6,90,000/- (sale amount and interest) by 31.3.2019 with commercial rate of interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33413 of 2018
Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Malaviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Shri. Ashok Malaviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.R.K.Shukla for the respondent bank.
An immovable property situated at Plot No.13, Arazi No.64, Bandhwa, Tahirpur, Pargana Jhunsi, Tehsil-Phulpur, DistrictAllahabad mortgaged with State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur was purchased by the petitioner being the highest bidder in auction sale against consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest amount of Rs.40,000/-. Despite the execution of sale deed, possession of the property aforesaid was not handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner on submitting various representations agitated his cause, but without any consequence. Later, the State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur came to be amalgamated with the State Bank of India (respondent no.3) on 01.4.2017. After amalgamation of State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur with State Bank of India, the petitioner again raised his cause, but of no consequences.
In this factual background, the instant petition for writ is preferred with a prayer that either physical possession of the auction property be given to the petitioner as per the sale deed dated 27.8.2011 or the entire consideration amount be refunded to the petitioner with commercial rate of interest.
Learned counsel appearing for the Bank after availing necessary instructions quite fairly stated that it is not possible for the bank now to hand over possession of the property in question as the same is not in existence at the address given. However, a direction can be given to the respondent no.3 to meet the ends of justice.
Having considered the facts so stated, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ by directing the respondent no.3 to refund the entire sale amount including the interest in a tune of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the petitioner presents the certified copy of this
order before him with interest at commercial rate. The entire amount is required to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent bank on or before 31.3.2019.
On receipt of the amount in terms above, the petitioner shall return the original sale deed to the respondent no.3
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.
Order Date:- 21.2.2019 SB
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J) ( Govind Mathur,C. J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the auction consideration amount with commercial interest given the non-existence of the mortgaged property.
Anuj Kumar Srivastava
State Of U.P.
Other
State Bank of India
Govind Mathur
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
