Disposed

Babu Ramanand, v. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Kerala HC22 Feb 2024WP(C)/24815/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to refund Rs. 4,25,025/- deposited by the successful bidder under the SARFAESI Act, along with interest at Savings Bank rate. The court declined to grant 12% interest due to the petitioner's laches. The petition was disposed of within three months.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs. 4,25,025/- with interest at Savings Bank rate within three months.

Babu Ramanand, Vs the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24815 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BABU RAMANAND,
AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY VARRIER, RAMA NILAYAM, KUTHANUR POST,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678 721.
BY ADVS.
K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
SRI.A.V.RAVI

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 035.

¶9

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,

¶10

INDIAN BANK, KEERTHI COMPLEX, COURT ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶11

SRI. S EASWARAN (SC)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 24815 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner was the successful bidder in an auction conducted by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The sale was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.17,00,100/-. Thereupon, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.4,25,025/- being 25% of the bid amount. After the deposit of the aforesaid sum of Rs.4,25,025/-, the petitioner was informed of certain litigations pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad in relation to the property, as a result of which, the Authorized Officer of the Bank was not in a position to collect the balance amount payable by the petitioner and issue sale certificate to him. The petitioner is therefore before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent Bank to refund the amount deposited by him.

¶17

According to the petitioner, when he had approached the Bank for refund of the amount, he was informed that he should wait for the outcome of the litigations before the Debts Recovery Tribunal / Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad and only thereafter could the claim of the petitioner for refund of the

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO. 24815 OF 2020

¶20

amount be considered.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank also. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank seeks further time to get instructions and to file a counter affidavit. However, it is noticed that this case came up for consideration before this Court on 12.02.2024, 13.02.2024, 14.02.2024 and 16.02.2024. On 16.02.2024, this Court passed the following order:

¶22

“At the request of the counsel for the

¶23

respondent, post on 22.02.2024, as a last chance.

¶24

No further adjournments will be granted under any circumstances.”

¶25

Today, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that further time may be granted to obtain instructions. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that since the sale in respect of which the reliefs are sought for took place in the year 2010 and since the files have been transferred to the Recovery Section, the counsel has been unable to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 24815 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and taking into consideration of the order passed by this Court on 16.02.2024, I am of the view that no further adjournment can be granted to enable the counsel for the respondent Bank to obtain instructions.

¶29

The petitioner participated in an auction sale conducted by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act on 15.01.2010. The petitioner was the successful bidder. In accordance with the terms of sale, the petitioner deposited 25% of the bid amount. i.e a sum of Rs.4,25,025/-on 15.01.2010. Even after a lapse of more than 14 years from the date of sale, the Bank has not been able to convey the property to the petitioner on account of pending litigations before the Debts Recovery Tribunal / Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad. The petitioner being a bidder in an auction sale cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the purposes of getting the property conveyed in his favour. Therefore, there cannot be any legal objection by the Bank to return the amount deposited by the petitioner along with reasonable interest. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted on the strength of a Division Bench

¶30

WP(C) NO. 24815 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

judgment of the Madras High Court in Shanmuganathan S v. Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai, Chennai [2017 KHC 4829] that the amount must be refunded with 12% interest, I am not inclined to allow 12% interest. The petitioner is also guilty of latches as this writ petition was filed only in the year 2020 in respect of a deposit made by the petitioner on 15.01.2010.

¶33

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4,25,025/- deposited by the petitioner on 15.01.2010 to the petitioner with interest at Savings Bank rate for the entire period within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.

¶35

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 24815 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24815/2020

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INTIMATING ABOUT
SALE OF PROPERTY, BY AUCTION, DATED
31.12.09.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SEND BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT REQUESTING, HIM TO ISSUE
SALE CONFIRMATION, DATED 16.01.10.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF LETTER SEND BY THE
PETITIONER, TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT,
SEEKING REFUND OF THE AMOUNT
DEPOSITED, DATED 10.04.10.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TO THE
PETITIONER, DATED 22.04.10.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.10.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE GIVEN BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER,
DATED 08.06.10.

Babu Ramanand, v. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Ramanand, v. the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambily Jo Vs Jo Augustin

K.Devadasan, Vs the Director

E.B.Premanathan Nair Vs Assistant Registrar(General)

Devasia Devasia, Vs Sibi Kuzhikattu

P.C.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Sabitha Vs the Agricultural Workers Welfare Fund Board