Shipra Shikha Vs Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Rosarb, Ranchi

2026:JHHC:17652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.C No. 3247 of 2026

Shipra Shikha aged about 36 years D/O Shailendra Kumar, 95 KF-4, Flat, BH Area Kadma, Near BDMS School, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s).

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, ROSARB, Ranchi P.O & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi …Respondent(s).

¶7

¶8

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar Advocate For the Bank : Mr. P.S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate

¶11

¶12

04/ 17.06.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought

¶13

for the following reliefs:-

¶14

i. The petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate direction(s) or a particular writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to make payment with compound interest on Rs. 30,90,000/- at the rate of 15 percent per annum with effect from 26.09.2022 till its realization

¶15

ii. In the alternative the respondent be directed to hand over the property having ID No. BARB599220210210 because the petitioner has participated in E-auction conducted by Bank of Baroda dated 14.09.2022 with respect to the aforementioned property and being the highest bidder her bid of Rs. 30,90,000/- was accepted as H1 bid in the property auctioned in the NPA account.

¶16

The petitioner, participated in a Bank of Baroda’s e-auction on 14.09.2022 for a property and emerged as the highest bidder with a bid of Rs.30,90,000/-, which she paid in full on 26.09.2022. However, despite repeated requests from September 2022 to October 2023, the bank did not promptly issue a sale certificate or hand over the possession. A sale certificate was later e-mailed on 27.10.2023, but it was disputed by the petitioner as belated and irregular, and shortly thereafter the bank cancelled the auction sale and offered a refund of the bid amount, allegedly without proper basis or notice.

¶17

Page No. 1

¶18

2026:JHHC:17652 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent bank acted arbitrarily and unlawfully by not issuing the sale certificate or giving possession of the property to the petitioner within a reasonable time, even after receiving the full payment from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner never asked for cancellation after the sale certificate was issued and was instead left without possession of the property or any interest on her money. The sale certificate was cancelled without giving proper reason and without hearing the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get back her bid amount along with interest or compensation.

¶19

The learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioner accepted e-auction terms which clearly stated that there was no provision for interest and the property was sold on in “as is where is” basis with symbolic possession. He further submits that the petitioner herself later requested for refund of the bid amount on 01.04.2024.i.e, after cancellation of the auction and also gave an undertaking that she would not raise any further claim regarding the property. Earlier, the bank had already informed her on 22.11.2023 to collect the refund, but she did not do so and instead provided her bank details later, after which the amount of Rs.30,90,000/- was refunded on 06.04.2024. He also submits that the sale certificate was duly issued on 15.03.2023 and possession was given as per the legal procedure under the SARFAESI Act.

¶20

After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the e-auction conducted by the respondent bank and had deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.30,90,000/- by 26.09.2022. Even after receiving the full amount, the bank neither handed over possession of the property nor completed the sale within a reasonable time. The sale certificate was issued after a long delay and was subsequently cancelled by the bank.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has suffered financial loss because her money remained with the respondent bank for more than one and a half years without any fault on

¶22

Page No. 2

¶23

2026:JHHC:17652 her part. Since the auction has already been cancelled and the amount of Rs.30,90,000/- has been refunded, the relief of handing over the property cannot now be granted. However, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount that remained with the bank for the said period. In view of the aforesaid fact, I direct the respondent to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount, deposited by the petitioner,

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶26

17^th June, 2026 Anu/- Cp2. Uploaded on 24.06.2026

¶27

Page No. 3

Shipra Shikha v. Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Rosarb, Ranchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shipra Shikha v. Chief Manager and Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, Rosarb, Ranchi

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

Anup Ranjan Vs Adityapur Municipal Corporation, through Its Administrator

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, Represented through Its Authorized Officer, Debasish Das Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Manoj Singh @ Raghwendra Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Aditi Vs Central Board of Secondary Education through Its Regional Officer

Shambhu Nath Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Express Food Services - Itarsi through Its Manager Damodar Pandit Vs Union of India through Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Railway Board