Disposed

Manas Ranjan Sahoo v. Ao, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Orissa HC10 Nov 2021WP(C)/15705/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail-judgment addresses a restraint order on the sale of residential property during auction. After ascertaining that the auction purchaser deposited the balance amount beyond the statutory 15-day statutory period, the Court noted the position stands adjudicated by the SARFAESI tribunal and disposed of the writ.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without considering the prayer for the sale certificate, noting the matter is for the SARFAESI tribunal.

Manas Ranjan Sahoo Vs Ao, Union Bank of India, Asset… — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 15705 of 2021

¶3

(Through Hybrid Mode)

¶4

….. Petitioner Manas Ranjan Sahoo

¶5

Miss S.Jena, Advocate
Vs.
AO, Union Bank of India, ….. Opposite Party
Asset Recovery Branch
and another Mr. A.K.Nath, Advocate for
O.P.1
Mr. A.P.Das, Advocate for
O.P.2
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
10.11.2021

¶6

Order No. 03. 1. Miss Jena, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. She submits proceedings for recovery were taken against her client and by notice issued by Assets Recovery Branch, Cuttack, there was e-auction fixed on 18^th March 2021, for sale of her client’s residential house being secured property for repayment of the loan.

¶7

She submits, on 18^th March, 2021 her client filed his earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) no.9906 of 2021. Same was moved on 30^th March, 2021and there was direction upon her client to immediately deposit Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakhs). Restraint on transfer of the property for a

¶8

Page 1 of 2

¶9

// 2 //

¶10

period of six weeks was also directed. Prayer of her client in this writ petition is for compelling the Bank to accept auction price of Rs.80,00,000/(Rupees eighty lakhs) as communicated by letter dated 16^th April, 2021. She submits further, aggregate of Rs.80,10,000/- (Rupees eighty lakh ten thousand) stood deposited by her client as on 4^th June, 2021. To that effect, affidavit has been filed. Opposite party no.2 is auction purchaser. She submits, said opposite party deposited on 14^th June, 2021.

¶11

Mr. Nath, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Bank and refers to annexure-F/1 in his client’s counter. He submits, opposite party no.2 was successful auction bidder. Annexure- F1 is sale confirmation advice dated 19^th March, 2021 saying that Rs.20,02,500/- (Rupees twenty lakh two thousand five hundred only) being 25 % of sale price stood deposited and balance 75 % of Rs.60,07,500/-(Rupees sixty lakh seven thousand five hundred only) to be deposited on or before 15^th day of confirmation of sale or within such extended period as agreed upon in writing, not exceeding 90 days of issuance of sale certificate in favour of purchaser opposite party no.2

¶12

Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits his client is bonafide auction purchaser and has done no wrong. His client is interested in the property. The sale stands confirmed and sale certificate should be issued. He submits further, his client is so interested that further additional consideration she is willing to pay.

¶13

Page 2 of 3

¶14

// 3 //

¶15

Court has ascertained that deposit of entire auction bid price of Rs.80,10,000/- (Rupees eighty lakh ten thousand only ) was made by petitioner on 4^th June, 2021. Court has further ascertained that balance money put in by opposite party no.2 was on 14^th June, 2021, much beyond 15 days of confirmation of sale. There is no document to show there was mutual extension of time up to the 90 days period. Court has also noticed said restraint order dated 30^th March, 2021 ran for six weeks to expire on or before 12^th May, 2021.

¶16

It appears the bank has not issued sale certificate in spite of the restraint order having expired. This may have been caused on deposit by auction purchaser made beyond 90 days though no extension was granted beyond 15 days of confirmation of sale. Bank now has twice the auction bid price. This position is to continue till it is adjudicated by the tribunal, on approach under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to be made by petitioner or opposite party no.2, as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶19

Prasant

¶20

Page 3 of 3

Manas Ranjan Sahoo v. Ao, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manas Ranjan Sahoo v. Ao, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rena@Runu Nayak Vs Namita Nayak

Md. Qaisar Iqbal Ali Vs State of Odisha

Raghunatha Palei Vs Principal Secy. Govt.of Odisha

Sanjay Keshari Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs Udayanath Rout

Saktikanta Das Vs Cda, Cuttack