Writ petitioner, successful e-auction bidder, challenged order fixing time to remit balance sale amount of Rs. 11 lakhs. Petitioner failed to pay even interim stay amount. Court dismissed petition, holding procedure complied with rules.
Debts
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)NO.6941 OF 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.P(MD)NO.6941 OF 2021 and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.5331 and 10731 of 2021
K.Velmurugan :Petitioner
.vs.
Fort Glacis,
16, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein dated 1.3.2021 and to quash the same insofar as the portion passed against the Petitioner by fixing stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of impugned order to remit the balance bid amount and consequently to direct the second respondent to extend the period of time limit to remit the balance bid amount for the auction sale property of the land measuring 10 cents comprised in R.S.No.43/4, Mathusoothanapuram Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District and to issue sale certificate to the Petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For Respondent No.2 :Mr.G.Murugan
1/3
W.P(MD)NO.6941 OF 2021
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY.,J. ]
The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein, dated 1.3.2021 and to quash the same insofar as the portion passed against the Petitioner by fixing stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of impugned order to remit the balance bid amount and consequently to direct the second respondent to extend the period of time limit to remit the bid amount for the auction sale property of the land measuring 10 cents comprised in R.S.No.43/4, Mathusoothanapuram Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
2.It is the case of the Petitioner that the second respondent/Bank bring the secured asset of the defaulting borrower namely, M/s.Kajalakshmi Pet Bottle Industries through e-auction on 20.1.2021 and that he participated in the said e-auction and he became the successful bidder for a bid amount of Rs.15,55,000/-.The Petitioner has also paid 25% of the bid amount on the date of auction and the second respondent had called upon the Petitioner/auction purchaser to pay the balance sale amount of Rs.11 lakhs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. However, inspite of receiving the impugned order, dated 1.3.2021, the Petitioner had failed to pay the balance sale amount of Rs.11 lakhs. Instead, the Petitioner had filed the above Writ Petition challenging the impugned order, dated 1.3.2021 calling upon to pay the balance price of Rs.11 lakhs.
3.Though the Petitioner has participated in the e-auction held on 20.01.2021, he has not paid the balance sale amount of Rs.11 lakhs till today.
4.This Court, by order, dated 26.3.2021, granted an order of interim stay on condition that the Petitioner paying a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within a period of four weeks time.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not complied with the conditional order, dated 26.3.2021 and remit the sum of Rs.3 lakhs so far.
6.At the instance of the auction purchaser, the proceedings had been prolonged for nearly eight months without attaining its finality. When the Petitioner is not in a position to remit the balance sale price, he should not have participated in the e- auction. By participating in the e-auction, he prevented the other purchasers from purchasing the property in the e-auction. The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is against the provisions of the
2/3
W.P(MD)NO.6941 OF 2021
Income Tax Rules. Therefore, we do not find any error or irregularity in the impugned order, dated 1.3.2021 passed by the second respondent. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
+1 CC to M/s.R.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-26603[F] dated 18/08/2021 )
W.P(MD)NO.6941 OF 2021 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5331 and 10731 of 2021 17.08.2021 GC(27.08.2021)/3P/4C
3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against the order fixing a time limit to remit the balance bid amount.
Whether the writ petitioner ought to have participated in the e-auction without being in a position to remit the balance sale price.
Whether the impugned order of the respondent causing delay in proceedings was an error or irregularity.
K. Velmurugan
The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India
The Authorized Officer, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited
M. Duraismamy
K. Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
