Shri Lakshyadhar Deka Vs the State Bank of India and Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010074852025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:7746

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1970/2025

¶6

SHRI LAKSHYADHAR DEKA

¶7

S/O LT BANAMLI DEKA R/O VILL AGDALA PO AND PS BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781381

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

¶10

REP BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST REGION HEAD OFFICE OPPOSITE ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 ASSAM

¶11

2:THE CHIEF MANAGER

¶12

STATE BANK OF INDIA ICD AMINGAON BRANCH GUWAHATI HAJO ROAD PIN 781031 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶13

3:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶14

STATE BANK OF INDIA ICD AMINGAON BRANCH GUWAHATI HAJO ROAD PIN 781031 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶15

4:HARMOHAN DEKA

¶16

S/O LT PADMA RAM DEKA R/O VILL AGDALA PO AND PS BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 78138

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M. Nath, Sr. Adv; Mr. B. J. Phukan; Mr. D. J. Kapil

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MS R HALOI(R-1,2,3), MS. A SAHA(R2,3),MS S DEY(R2,3),MR. K K NANDI(R2,3),MS M DAS(R-4),MS B SHARMA(R-4),MR D K NATH (R-4),MR. S DUTTA (R1,2,3),MR K KASHYAB (R-1,2,3)

¶19

Page No.# 2/7

¶20

:::BEFORE:::

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶22

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.06.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes

¶23

Judgment & Order (Oral)

¶24

Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Nandi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

¶25

None appears for the respondent No. 4 despite service of notice.

¶26

2. The petitioner, being the successful auction purchaser in respect of a plot of land standing in the name of Shri Harmohan Deka measuring 3 Kathas 17½ Lechas covered by Dag No. 796 (Old)/1498 (New) of K.P. Patta No. 11/126 (Old)/305 (New), situated at Village Agdola under Barbangshar Mouza in the district of Kamrup, Assam, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to hand over Khas possession of the said e-auctioned property pursuant to the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 16.03.2023. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of interest on the amount of Rs. 90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) at the rate of 12% per annum from

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

01.06.2023 till the date of actual payment.

¶29

3. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, ICD, Amingaon Branch, Kamrup, issued an E-Auction Sale Notice dated 16.03.2023 for sale of an immovable property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) read with proviso to Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in respect of an equitable mortgage over a plot of land standing in the name of Shri Harmohan Deka measuring 3 Kathas 17½ Lechas covered by Dag No. 796 (Old)/1498 (New) of K.P. Patta No. 11/126 (Old)/305 (New), Village Agdola under Barbangshar Mouza, District Kamrup, Assam, bounded on the North by Banamali Deka, on the South by Road, on the East by Road and on the West by Usha Rani Deka. The notice stated that physical possession of the secured asset had already been taken by the Authorised Officer of the respondent Bank and that the property would be sold on “As is Where is”, “As is What is” and “Whatever there is” basis for recovery of Rs. 13,60,410/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Ten only) as on 19.10.2021, together with further interest, costs and charges, with reserve price fixed at Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) and earnest money deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only).

¶30

4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner participated in the E-Auction process by depositing the earnest money of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) in favour of the respondent Bank vide Cheque No. 603285 dated 12.04.2023. The petitioner’s bid bearing Buyer Registration ID No. 401119 was found to be responsive and was accepted by the respondent Bank. The petitioner had quoted Rs. 90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) as his bid

¶31

Page No.# 4/7

¶32

amount and deposited the same in two instalments, i.e. Rs. 13,51,500/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand Five Hundred only) vide Cheque No. 603287 dated 18.04.2023 and Rs. 67,58,500/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) vide Cheque No. 603288 dated 06.05.2023. Accordingly, on 06.05.2023, the petitioner had fully discharged all his liabilities towards the respondent Bank in terms of the E-Auction result dated 17.04.2023 and was awaiting delivery of Khas possession of the auctioned property. However, despite repeated requests, the respondent Bank failed to hand over possession of the property without any valid reason and also failed to issue the Sale Certificate within time. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before the respondent Bank on 02.11.2023 seeking delivery of Khas possession, but the same was not considered.

¶33

5. At the outset, Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the writ petition was originally filed seeking a direction for delivery of khas possession of the auctioned property in terms of the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 16.03.2023, the petitioner is no longer pressing the said relief. Instead, the petitioner confines his claim to refund of the entire auction consideration amounting to Rs. 90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.06.2023 till actual payment.

¶34

6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that despite receipt of the entire bid amount and declaration of the petitioner as the successful bidder, the respondent Bank has failed to deliver possession of the auctioned property without any justifiable reason. The explanation offered by the respondent Bank attributing the non-delivery of possession to alleged non-cooperation of the

¶35

Page No.# 5/7

¶36

District Administration is stated to be contrary to the record, inasmuch as the E- Auction Sale Notice itself records that physical possession of the property had already been taken over by the Authorised Officer of the Bank. It is therefore submitted that, while not pressing the prayer for delivery of Khas possession, the respondent Bank may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 90,10,000/(Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.06.2023 till the date of actual payment.

¶37

7. Mr. K. K. Nandi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, submits that due to lack of cooperation from the District Administration, possession of the secured asset (E-Auctioned property) could not be handed over to the petitioner despite sincere efforts made by the respondent Bank. It is submitted that Title Suit No. 30 of 2017 is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Amingaon, which has further contributed to the inability of the Bank to deliver possession of the said E-Auctioned property to the petitioner. He submits that there is no wilful negligence or concealment of facts on the part of the respondent Bank.

¶38

8. While not disputing the deposit of Rs. 90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) by the petitioner towards the bid amount for purchase of the property through E-Auction, learned counsel submits that the prevailing rate of interest on home loan is 7.25% per annum and that on fixed deposits/term deposits is 6.25% per annum. In such circumstances, he fairly submits that the respondent Bank is ready to refund the said amount of Rs. 90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment.

¶39

9. However, during the course of hearing, when this Court indicated its inclination to award interest at a higher rate of 13% having regard to the facts

¶40

Page No.# 6/7

¶41

and circumstances of the case, Mr. Nandi, learned counsel, fairly submits that the respondent Bank would be agreeable to refund the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment.

¶42

10. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶43

11. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared the successful bidder pursuant to the E-Auction Notice dated 16.03.2023 issued for sale of the immovable property in question. The petitioner deposited a total sum of Rs. 90,10,000/(Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only), being the full bid amount, in two instalments towards purchase of the said e-auctioned property.

¶44

12. It is also not in dispute that despite receipt of the entire bid amount, the respondent Bank failed to hand over possession of the e-auctioned property to the petitioner. The explanation offered for non-delivery of possession does not appear to be satisfactory, particularly in view of the fact that the E-Auction Sale Notice itself records that physical possession of the secured asset had already been taken over by the Authorised Officer of the Bank. Further, the pendency of the civil suit in respect of the property was within the knowledge of the respondent Bank at the relevant point of time and cannot, in the facts of the present case, justify indefinite non-performance of the obligations arising out of the concluded auction process.

¶45

13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering that the petitioner is not pressing the relief for delivery of khas possession of the e-auctioned property and has confined his claim to refund of Rs.

¶46

Page No.# 7/7

¶47

90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only) deposited by him with the respondent Bank, with interest thereon and further considering the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no further adjudication is required in the matter except for issuing appropriate directions for refund of the aforesaid amount along with interest.

¶48

14. Accordingly, the respondent Bank is directed to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 90,10,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ten Thousand only), together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, calculated from 06.05.2023, forthwith. It is made clear that, in the event of failure to make such payment, the outstanding amount shall thereafter carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum until its full realization.

¶49

15. The writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above.

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Comparing Assistant

Shri Lakshyadhar Deka v. the State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Lakshyadhar Deka v. the State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faila Borgoyary and 390 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Asad Uddin and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Faizur Rahman Talukdar and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ruma Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Saniwara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Abu Bakkar Siiddique Vs the State of Assam