Disposed

DakkumallaJapamma, v. State Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2019WP/10448/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition declaring no further orders necessary since the auction did not take place. The petitioner was permitted to make a fresh offer to the bank, which the bank would then consider.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to make a fresh written offer to the bank for consideration. If the auction purchaser, the bank shall return the EMD if unwilling to receive the bid amount.

DakkumallaJapamma, Vs State Bank of India — Andhra Pradesh HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.10448 of 2019

¶5

ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti)

¶6

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶7

India seeking verbatim the following relief:-

¶8

“….declaring the action of the respondents in conducting the proposed auction of the property in vacant residential site in an extent of 207.50 sq. yards, located at D.No.143 of Nallapadu, Ward No.26, Side Door No.26-39-120/21 (New Side Door No.92-12-96, 4^th lane, Ramireddy Nagar, Guntur, Nallapadu Road, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur, without refund of EMD money, deposited by the petitioner during the auction conducted on 22.06.2018, is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to SARFESI Act, and consequently to direct the respondents to refund his EMD Rs.10,16,600/- and to pass such other order or orders.”

¶9

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶10

petitioner and of Sri C. Subodh, learned stand counsel for the bank appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶11

We have perused the material record.

¶12

At the hearing, it is submitted that the auction sale was not held on 07.08.2019. In that view of the matter, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition is the submission.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner offered to pay certain amount to the bank in respect of the subject

¶14

¶15

property and therefore, the bank may be directed to consider the said offer. He further submits that in the interim order dated 06.08.2019, passed in this writ petition, this Court already gave directions to the bank to consider the offer of the petitioner and issue an offer letter and that therefore, the said direction may be continued while disposing of the writ petition.

¶16

However, learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that since the auction was not held and no bid amount was offered by any intending purchasers, the consideration of the offer of the petitioner does not arise.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of as no further orders are necessary. Petitioner is at liberty to make an offer in writing afresh to the bank, if the petitioner so desires and is so advised by offering to pay any amount which the petitioner is willing to pay. In the event, the petitioner makes any such written offer, it is for the respondent/bank to consider the same, in accordance with facts and law. It is needless to state that if the bank is unwilling to receive the balance bid amount or the amount that may be offered by the petitioner, who is the auction purchaser, in such an event the bank shall return the EMD to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

¶20

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶21

closed. No order as to costs.

¶22

_____________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

J.UMA DEVI, J

Date:03.09.2019. Gk

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶27

AND

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.10448 of 2019

¶30

Date:03.09.2019

¶31

DakkumallaJapamma, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

DakkumallaJapamma, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolluru Ramesh Vs the Chief Manager / Authorized Officer

Peneti Venkata Ramana Murthy at Murthy Vs Syndicate Bank

B Rama Rao Vs a R Anuradha

Bheemavarapu Madhusudhana Rao Vs The Authorised Officer

P. Mary John Vs M/S Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

D Jayaprakash Vs M Radhika