Disposed

Mr Anckur v. Mittal v Bank of Baroda General Manager (Principal Nodal Officer) & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/28/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's bid deposit was forfeited under a SARFAESI e-auction for non-payment of the balance despite extension; the borrower later settled dues with the bank and the property was released. Petitioner sought refund of the forfeited amount, citing Alisha Khan; petition disposed with direction to treat writ contentions as representation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent bank directed to consider writ petition contentions as a representation and decide in accordance with law within six weeks; liberty granted to petitioner.

Mr Anckur v Mittal Vs Bank of Baroda General Manager… — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 7^th January, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 28/2025 & CM APPL. 68/2025

¶5

MR ANCKUR V MITTAL

¶6

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh and Mr. Neeraj Maurya, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

BANK OF BARODA GENERAL MANAGER (PRINCIPAL NODAL OFFICER) & ANR.

¶9

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC with Ms. D. Veragi, Mr. B N Mishra, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

Respondent Bank had initiated auction/sale proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

¶13

The property in question was a residential property situated at Khasra No. 652, Khata No. 147, VII Kheda Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

¶14

The petitioner participated in the above said e-auction and was found to be the highest bidder.

¶15

W.P.(C) 28/2025 1

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.01.2025 11:37:28

¶17

As per the terms of the bid document, the petitioner deposited 25% of the bid amount on 28.06.2023. Such amount was of Rs. 44,25,000/-

¶18

Petitioner was also required to deposit the balance amount in a time-bound manner.

¶19

Fact remains that he could not do so and sent request to the bank to extend the time.

¶20

Admittedly such time, on the basis of the request made by the petitioner himself, was extended upto 20.09.2023. Fact remains, since the balance amount was not paid despite extension, the above amount of Rs. 44,25,000/was forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the auction/sale proceedings.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner highlights that there is a subsequent huge development in the matter as the bank has entered into one time settlement (OTS) with the concerned borrower and pursuant to such settlement, the concerned borrower has paid all the outstanding dues to the satisfaction of the respondent bank and respondent bank has also released and discharged the above said mortgaged property to the concerned borrower.

¶22

It is submitted that thus the petitioner has not incurred any loss in the entire process.

¶23

It is also submitted that the petitioner, earlier, could not make the balance payment due to sudden closure of his business but contending that since there is neither any loss nor any prejudice to the respondent bank, it is prayed that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the respondent be asked to refund the above said forfeited amount.

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.01.2025 11:37:28

¶25

W.P.(C) 28/2025 2

¶26

In this regard, the petitioner also strongly relies upon Alisha Khan vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) & Ors [ SLP (C) Nos. 15959-15960/2021 date of judgment-13.12.2021] .

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice.

¶28

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the moment, the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the contentions made in the writ petition as representation and to decide the same in a time-bound manner.

¶29

He also seeks liberty to knock the doors of the Court again in case, the outcome remains no different.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent has no objection to the above said proposal. He, however, submits that the forfeiture was, otherwise, justified.

¶31

Be that as it may, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent bank to consider the contentions made in the present writ petition as a representation and to decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks.

¶32

Liberty, as prayed, is also granted to the petitioner.

¶33

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶34

JANUARY 7, 2025/ sw

¶35

W.P.(C) 28/2025 3

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.01.2025 11:37:28

Mr Anckur v. Mittal v Bank of Baroda General Manager (Principal Nodal Officer) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Anckur v. Mittal v Bank of Baroda General Manager (Principal Nodal Officer) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya Mishra and Ors. Vs Manish Kumar Upadhyay and Anr.

Jawahar Lal Vs National Commission for Protection of Child Rights & Ors.

Saket Parash Agarwal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Arun Prabha Dube Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sh. Gurmit Singh Vs the Commissioner MCD of Delhi & Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council and Others

Sharma Sales Corporation and Ors. Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Dev. Corp. Ltd. (Dsiidc)

Harish Tiwari Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Shayan Lahiri Vs Mr Pramod Kumar Jain President, Rajat Jain Cooperative Group Housing Society & Anr.

Manisha Malhotra Vs State Bank of India

Stephen Francis Vs Ajay Kumar Dutt

Buniyad Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mossi Nyamale Rosette & Anr.

Naveen Yadav Alias Prince Vs Arvind Rana

Md. Faruque Alwander Farukh Genda Vs Government of NCT Delhi, Shri Naresh Kumar and Another