drawn that an attempt had been made to acquire that property/asset at a grossly inadequate price. This situation itself may indicate fraud or some collusion. What would be a substantially higher amount would naturally depend on the facts of each case. However, if the price offered after the auction, is slightly higher than the highest bid in the auction, as is the case here, that cannot by itself suggest that any fraud has been committed. In fact, in the present case, no fraud or collusion is even pressed before us at the time of arguments. If the Courts interfere merely because a marginally higher offer was received subsequently, the public at large would loose faith in the system and it would become very difficult, if not impossible, for the Courts and other judicial authorities to sell the properties of the judgementdebtors to satisfy the decrees passed against them. As noted above, it is not even the case of the Petitioner herein that there was any fraud, collusion or illegality in the process of auctioning the mortgaged property by Respondent No.4, who is the Special Recovery Officer for the 3rd Respondent Bank. The only contention raised in the present Writ petition is that the property was sold at a far lesser value than its market value. Factually, we do not find that such is the case, and in fact looking to the subsequent offer received of Rs.1,75,00,000/-, it is clear that the market value of the mortgaged property was nowhere near Rs.4,00,00,000/- as was sought to be contended by Mr Warunjikar.
