Auction purchaser in a SARFAESI e-auction failed to pay the balance 75% of the sale price in time; after an earlier court declined to quash the sale, he tendered demand drafts which the bank refused. The court held no mandamus could issue directing the bank to accept the belated payment and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
I
HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THEEIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLETHE CHIEFJUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN AND
THE HON'BLEMrs'JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITIONNO:5484oF 2022
Between:
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition underArticle226 of lhe constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein the nature ofwrit of mandamus.
( iii)
twocroresseventySevenlakhsfiftythousandonly)infurtheranceof the directions issuedby this hon'ble court in wp no B191of 2020 Direct the respondentsto issuea sale certificateto the petitionerwith respect to theproperties bearingac. 3.27gls in sy No'1 13 ac 3'00 gts in sy. No. 1131e ac.3.26gts in sy. No. 113laal2ac' 3 26 gts in sy no' 113iaal1 ac.3.27gts in sy. No. 113/ aa, totally admeasuring ac' 17 26 gts situated at vemula villageand gram. panchayat, midgil mandal' iiahboobnagardistrict (hereinafter referredto as schedulea property) and with reipect toland admeasuringac. 8 34 gts in sy' No' 12012a situated at vemulavillage and grampanchayat, midgilmandal' mahbubnagar district(hereinafterreferredto as 'schedule b' property)
IANO:1 OF 2022
Petition under section151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition, the High courtmaybe pleased to direct the Respondentbank authoritiesnot to issuea fresh sale notice / e-auction notice, including bynot taking any further steps towdrdssale of the property situated at ec. l.ziGts in Sy. No. 113;Ac. 3.00 Gts in Sy No 113/e;Ac 3'26 cii i" sv. No.-1 13/aal2;ec. i.zo Gts in Sy No. 113/aal1; Ac'3'27Gts in Sy No 113taa, iotally admeasuringAc. 17.26 Gts situated at Vemula Village andGram panchayat, tr,4idgil Mandai Mahboobnagar District) and with resp99l.to land aOmLasuring RcIa.g+ Gts in Sy. No. 120/2A situated at Vemula Village and Grampanchiyat,tr/idgil Mandal, MahbubnagarDistrictpendingthe disposal of the writpetition and Pass
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filedin support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to pass orders directing the Respondentbank authorities not to forfeitthe amounts paidbythePetitionertowardstheauctionconductedonl6.03.2020in iurtherjnce of E-auctionnotice dated 24.o1.2020 withregardto property situated atAc.3.27 Gts in sy.No.1',1 3; Ac.3.00 Gts in sy. No. 113/e;Ac.3.26Gts in Sy. No. 113laat2; nc. e.ZOGts in Sy No.1'1 3/aal1 :Ac.327 Gts in Sy No ll3iaa' totaily admeasuring Ac.17.26 Gts situatedat VemulaVillageand Gram Panchayat, MidgilMandal, MahboobnagarDistrictand with respect to land admeasuring Rc. s.g+Gts in Sy. No. 120/2A situated at Vemula Village and Grampanchiyat, MidgilMandal,lr,4ahbubnagarDistrictpendingthe disposal of the writ petition andpass
lA NO: 3 OF 2022
Between:
1 State Bank of lndia, StressedAssetRecovery Branch,2nd Floor, TSRTC erilding Commuter!,Amenity Centre, Koti ,Hyderabad-500095, Repby its Authorized Officer.
AND
No4 "RespondenuRespondent
petitionq.d:rs:!!ii;il,f ;"i',il'l:'.n'Jfl\3p.qi#'Jl#;$fX',",U: in the affidavitfiled in suPpo;alriJ"g [h"'i","r'n.' "* clismissthe Writ PetltlonE in thisWrit Petition'
Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI PASHAM MOHITH REDDY
Counselfor the Respondent Nos'1 to SRI G'L'V' RAMANAMURTHY Counselfor the Respondent No'4:SRI K'KIRAN KUMAR
The Courtmade the following: ORDER
c
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRIUJJAL BHITYAN AND HON'BLE MTS. JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA
;
WRIT PETITION No.5484 of 2022
ORDER: (Per Hon'bte tlLe Chief Justice Si UlaL Bltugan)
Heard Mr. Pasham Mohith Reddy, learned counsel forthe petitioner; Mr. M. Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel forrespondents 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for respondentNo.4
petitioner seeks the foilowing reliefs:
(i) Declaring the action of the respondents bank authoritiesin rejectingthe amounts paid by the petitioner vide its rejection letter dated23.f2.2O21as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same;
(ii) Direct the respondents to forthwith accept the demand draftsvideDD No.502963 drawn on ICICI Bank, Barkatpura Branch for INR 1,83,75,000/-(One crore eighty three lakhs seventy five thousand) and DD No.502962drawn on ICICI Bank, Barkatpura branch for INR 93,75,000/- (Ninety three lakhs seventyfive thousand onl)') totally amounting to INR 2,77,50,000/-(Two crores seventvseven lakhs fiftv thousand only) in furtherance of the directions issued by thisHonble Court in W.P. No.819 1 of 2Q2O;
(iii) Direct the respondents to issue a sale certificate to thepetitioneru,ith respect to the properties bearing Ac.3-27 gts in Sy. No.113; Ac.3.00gts in Sy.No.113/e; Ac.3.26 gts in Sy.No.113/alal2; Ac.3.26gts in Sy.No.113laal1, Ac.3.27 gts in Sy.No. 113/aa, totally admeasuring Ac.17.26 gts situated at Vemula Villag: and Gram Panchayat, Midgil Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District(hereinafter refered to as 'schedule a'property) and with respect to land admeasuringAc.8-34 gts in Sy.No. 120/2a situated at Vemula Village and Gram Panchayat, Midgil Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereina{ter referred to as 'schedule b'propert}') and;
(iv) Pass such order or other orders as this Honlcle Court deems fit andproper in the circumstances of the case.
\ \
2
petition wasregisteredas W P' No'8191'of 2O2Oand was disposedof by this Court vide theorder dated 3O'11'2021'Factsof the case as narrated in the final orderdated 30.17'2021may be extracted hereunder:
2.1 Furtherprayer made is to set aside the e-auction noticedated 24 'Ol '2020 auctionheldon 16'03 2020' i"i trr" "ot ".q.ieniial
2.2 A relatedprayer has been made for a directionto respondents Iand 2 to return rheamounts oi,iov"ii. ;';fitt";;.following auctionheld on 16.03.2020 along withinterest at the rate of18%oper a'nnum'
"ScheduleA orooertv
Property admeasuringAcs 3 27 gts' In Sy No'113;.Ac3 00 Gts in Sv No 113/e: ct"in Sv'.No 113/aalI r Ac 3 27 sts in Ac.3.26 sts.in sv.No. 1 tst"lti; f; Sv No.113/aa. tot"ttv,a.t'Ll;;g;;" i?-2; gts .iituatedat Vemula village and '; G'r^rn Prr,"hryut,M idgil Mandal'Mahaboobnagarutstncr'
ScheduleB Prooertv
Land admeasuringAcsS'34 gts in SyNo120/2Asituatedat Vemula village ."d"4;;;;;;;;";vt,"tlllogitMana-at'MahaboobnagarDistrict "
5.1 Petitionerparticipatedin the auction for both the properties andemerged as the successfulbidder. ---
3
5.2 In terms of the auction notice, petitionerpaid an amount of Rs.61 ,25,o0O.00 (Rupees skty one lakhs, tu'enty five thousand only) for theschedule-A property, and also paid Rs.31,25,00O.00(Rupeersthirtyone lakhs, twentyfivethousandonly) for the schedule-B propert!' on 16.03.2021itself.
;
5.3 lt may be mentioned that on 16.03.2020, respondentNo.l issued sale confirmation letter to the petitioner.
5.4 Though the remaining amounts as per the bidswere tobe paid by 31.O3.2O2O, because of the outbreak of thepandemic and the resultantlockdown, the same could not bepaid.
5.5 Petitioner addressed letter dated 28.03.2020 to respondentsl and2 for extension of time for payment of the remaining amounts.Extension was granted by respondent No.1 from time to time. However, by letter dated 30 05.2020,petitioner was called upon to make the balance payments by 10.06.2020 contendingthat ninety days period as prescribed under Rule 9 of the SARFAESIRules,would come to an endby that date.
5.6 As the.lock down was relaxed progressively from 01.06.2020 onwards, petitioner visited schedule-A and schedule-B properties. On such visit, he found that there were no approach road to either of the twoproperties.
5.7 Petitioner immediately wrote to respondents 1 and 2 on 03.06.2020 about the above fact, further stating that the description of theproperties in the e-auction was misleading and that basic information rvas withheld from the bidders, whohad participated in the auction, including the petitioner that there was nopassage or pathway to the schedule properties.
5.8 In this connection, petitioner made a request to the competent Tahsildar on 03.06.2O2O and in response thereto, Tahsildar informed the petitioneron 08.06.2020 about the report of the Mandal Surveyor with map, asper which,there was no path to the two schedule properties.
5.9 Alleging that there was misrepresentation on the part of respondents 1 and 2, thereby inducing the petitioner to participate in the auction to his prejudice, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
4
respondents havebeen denied.At the outset, an objection hasbeen raised as to the maintainability of the writpetition, by contendingthatpetitioner has an adequate and efficacious alternativeremedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESIAct. Instead of availing the alternative remedy,petitioner has invokedthe jurisdictionof this court under Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof India.Therefore,on this count alone,the writ petition is liable to bedismissed.
8.1 On merit it isstated that respondentNo.3 had availed loan of To Rs.4,50,00,000.00(Rupees four crores, fifty lakhs only)fromrespondentNo l avail the said loan, schedule-Aand schedule-B propertieswere furnishedas securit),. After availing theloan, respondent No.3 failed to repay the same, for rvhich th. lo^n account wai classifiedas Non PerformingAsset(NPA) on 74'1020\7' Thereafter, respondentNo.1 initiated proceedingsunder the SARFAESIAct by issuing demand notice underSection 13(2) of the SARFAESIAct on 17 10 2017 As the borrower as well asguarantors failed to repay the outstandingdues,possession notice dated 1A.12.2017 underSection13(4) of the SARFAESIAct, was issued, which was also published intwo news papers, as well as affixedon the schedule properties.
8.2 In continuation of therecovery proceedings,respondentNo 2 issuednotice under Rule 8(6) of theSARFAESIRuleson 24.01.2020 addressed to respondent No.3 and the guarantors.
8.3 Despite receipt of such notice,respondentNo.3 and theguarantors failed to repay the outstandingloanamount.
8.4 It is in such circumstances,that the scheduleproperties were put to action (sic'auction'), which was carried out on16.03.2020.
8.5 In the said auction sale,petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of both the properties.He, therefore,remitted10%of the earnest moneydepositas wellas lS"Z" of the bid amount, totaling25%,amountingtoRs.61,25,000 00 (Rupeessixty one lakhs, twenty fivethousand only) forschedule-Aproperty and Rs.31,25,O00,00(Rupeesthirtyonelakhs,twentyfivethousandonly)forscheduleB property.
8.6 Respondent No.2 issuedsale conlirmation lettersdated 16 03 2021 to the petitioner, further calling uponhim toremit thebalance amou:rt of i?s. 1,83,75,000.00(Rupees onecrore, eighty threelakhs, seventyfive thousand onlyi and Rs.93,75,OOO.OO(Rupeesninety three lakhs, seventyfive thousandonly) respectively lvithin fifteendays i.e., by 31-03.2020.
A.7 Petitioners by various lettersdated28.O3.2O2O,2a.O4'2O2Oand29 05 2O2O sought for extension oftime for payment of the balance7 5Y' of the sale coniideration. Considering therequest,the time was extendedtill 15.06.2020'
8.8 lnsofar allegation of thepetitioner that there was no passageor pathwayto the schedule p.op..tie", thesamehas been deniedand disputedby the answering respondents. Reierence has beenmade to Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESIRules, as weli as point No.7 of the termsand conditions of the e-auction applicationform dated 06.03.2020, asperwhich, the bidder (petitioner) ought to have exhibiteddue diligence regarding theschedule properties.
5
V L
petitioner.
9.1 It is contended that respondentNo.1 hadlodgeda complaintwithCBl,Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, againstrespondentNo.3, and itsdirectors; investigation is going on into the complaint.During the course of investigation,the Investigating Officer accompanied by Bank officialshad visited thesiteon 26.03.2027, recorded a panchanama of theproperties.The propertiesvisitedwere schedule-A and schedule-Bproperties.
9.2 From the panchanama, the said properties are havingkutchapassage / road from the main road. Ex-sarpanch of thevillageMr. V.Shankar Nayak stated that he had seen thepassage right from his childhood.
9.3 On the above basis it is stated that the auctionedproperties havepassage facility and in fact the map relied upon by the petitioner alsorellectsthe same.It is stated that the ,'dt petition filed by the petitioner is an afterthought and thesame has been filed only to avoid forfeiture of thepayments made by thepetitioner.
1 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that from the informationfurnished to the petitioner by the Tahsildar on 08.06.2020, which includedthe communication of the Mandal Surveyor, it is evident that there is nopassage /path way to the schedule properties. Without such passage / pathway, theschedule properties have no utility. Respondents 1 and 2 had withheld this information in the e-auction notice dated 24.O1.2O2O. Respondents 1 and2 are undera legal obligation to make full disclosure of the schedule properties; failure to doso,would render the auction null and void.
11.1 In this connection, reliance has beenplaced on Rule 8(6) of theSARFAESI Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner also alleged collusionbetween respondents 3 and 2.
ll.2 Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to take advantage of their ou'n wrong. Since the petitioner has been lured into the biddingprocess by misrepresentation of facts and by withholding relevant facts, the said bid should therefore be declared as null and void, and consequently the amount depositedb)' the petitioner should be released by respondents 1 and 2 to thepetitioner with applicable interest.
6
Iaw; petitionerhad participated in the auction voluntarily and with eyes wide opa.,''* is inconceivablethat a person parting about a croreof rupees on the .ir"tio., ""t" date,woulddo so, withoui making preliminary enquiry aboutthe "Lt"" "ithe propertiessoughtto the auction sold Accordingto him' pre-sentwrit petition is ,otfri.rg Urtan attempt by thepetitioner- to prevent forfeiture of thepaid lmount Uy respoidents1 and2. He, therifore,seeksvacation of the interimorder' as well as dismissalof the writ petition'
1g. Thereis no allegation of violationof the principlesof natulal justice, or ,i-of^tlo.t of a.ry fu.rda--entalrights of the petitioner' Vires of anylegislation is not Petitioner hisalso noi questionedthe competence' or the ""a"i "f-t"rf""ge. of" the authoritywho carried out .the auction sale' Insuch f ""ircr-,m"tances, ".*af"i-" and having regard to the remedy provided under the statute'we are .roi i.r."ti.,.a toentertain itt."-.ltpetition, as the petitioner had failedto availthe alternativeremedy providedunder the statute'
7
V L
participated in the auction on 16.03.2020 and became the highest bidder. On that date itself, he had paid Rs.61 ,25,000.00 (Rupees sixty one lakhs, twentyfive thousand only) for schedule-A property and in additionpaid Rs.31,25,000.00 (Rupees thirty one lakhs, twenty five thousand only) towards schedule-B property.
8
7 . According to thepetitioner, following the aboveorder of this court, he had drawn two demanddrafts on ICICI Bank, Barkatpura Branch,Hyderabad, one for Rs. 1,83,75,000-00and the other for Rs.93,75,000-00,total amounting to Rs.2,77,50,000-00in favour of the l"t respondent.Request was made to the respondents-sBl toaccept the above demand drafts as payments towards balance sale considerationand thereafter to execute the certificate of Sale in respect of Schedule-Aproperty and Schedule-Bproperty.Respondingto the representation dated15.12.2021 of the petitioner, respondent issuedletter dated 23. \2.2021rejectingthe request of the petitioner for acceptingbalance payment and for execution ol Sale certificate.Respondents-sBltook the stand that as per Rules 8and 9 of the security Interest (Enforcement)Ru1es, 2002 (briefly,the sARFAESIRules', hereinafter),authorities of the sBI werenot empowered to acceptthe saidamounts after the extendedperiod'
B. Alleging that such decisionof the respondents-SBl is contrary to the order of this Court dated30.1 l.2o2l,besides being contemptuoustoo, the present writ petition has beenliled seekingthe reliefs as indicated above.
g. Respondent Nos.1,2and 3 (sBI) have filed common counter-affidavit. stand taken in the affidavitis that w.P.No.8191 of 2o2o was iiled by the same petitioner before this court contendingthat he was misled by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3(SBI) aboutthe schedule properties,particularlyabout the lack .-? ....r' of approach road to thetwo plots of land. Thus, the petitionerwas irrduced by
9
t
suppression and misrepresentation to participate in the auction for sale of the schedule properties. In the circumstances petitioner filed w.p. No.g 191 of 2o2o to set aside the e-auction sale and to return 2svo ol the sale price deposited back to the petitioner. Though on 15.6.2o2o this court had passed an interim order directing sBI not to forfeit the amount already paid by the bidder, however by the final order dated 30.11.2021, court held that the writ petition would not be entertained on the ground that the auction purchaser was having the statutory remedy of filing securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunai.
9.1. According to the final order dated 30.11.2021 passed in W.p.No.B191 of 2o2o, respondents-sBl was {irst supposed to take a decision and thereafter to make an offer to the petitioner. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to have directly deposited the two demand drafts into the account of SBI.
9.2 Referring to Rule 9 gl of the SARFAESI Rules, it is stated that the same is of mandatory nature as per which time to deposit Tsvo ol the outstanding dues can be extended by both the parties but not beyond three months from the date of confirmation of sale. Therefore, SBI was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner (auction purchaser) and declining to accept the two demand drafts.
9.3. Answering respondents have referred to the order d,ated, 1.2.2022 passed by this court in the present writ proceeding calling upon them not to
10
forfeit 2i5Voofthe sale price paid by the petitionerand not to issue fresh sale notice inrespect of the scheduleproperties,making a grievancethat though theyhad lodged caveat, without servinga copy of the writ petition or without hearingthe answering respondents'interim order was passedby this Courton 1.2.2022.
g.4. RespondentNos'1' 2 and 3 have highlightedthe contradictorystand taken bythe petitioner in W'P' No'819 1 of 2O2O and in the present writ petition.Disputingthe contentions raised by the petitioner made in the earlierwritpetitionregardingnon_accessibilityofthescheduleproperties'itis Statedthatinthepresentwritpetitionthereliefssoughtforbythepetitioner are completelycontrary to the relief sought for in the earlierwrit petition' Earlier,the prayer was made to quash the auctionsale and thereafterto return 25o/o ofthesale price deposited by the petitioner back to the petitioner' On the other hand,prayer madein the presentwrit petitionrelates to acceptance of the balance7 5o/o of the sale price which is contradictoryto the eariier reliefs soughtfor.
o< That apart,answering respondents have contendedthat the petitioner has filedContemptCaseNo. 165 of 2022 for alleged wi1ful and deliberate violationof the order dated3O'1 1 '2021' But in the present writ petitionthere rs no mentionof fiiing of the contemptcase which amounts to supp'essionof materiar facts.Therefore, answering respondents seek dismissalof the writ petition.
L1,
;,
(-10. The 4fr respondent has also fiied counter-affidavit wherein he has highlighted the contradictory stands taken by the writ petitioner in the two writ petitions. While acknowledging that 4fr respondent was the borrower for whose default proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated by SBI, he also submits that he had approached State Bank of India (SBI) for One Time Settlement (OTS). On two occasions the offer for OTS was rejected by State Bank of India (SBI). Finally, 4tn respondent made an offer for OTS on 6.8.2027 to settle the outstanding dues at Rs.4 Crores. In this regard, 4ft respondent also paid Rs.60,00,000/- to the SBI, which was, however, not accepted by SBL According to the 4fr respondent, market value of Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties would be much higher now than the saie price at which the petitioner had purchased the two properties on auction sale. According to him, as per the valuation report dated 23.02.2021 market value of the two properties wouid be about Rs.7.06 crores. In this connection, 4ft respondent has also faulted the action of SBI in not properly fixing the reserve price. Finaliy, he submits that the petitioner has got adequate and efficacious alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Instead of availing such remedy, petitioner has directly approached this Court in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, on this ground also the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
12
petitioner to fiie contemptcase. In any case, purport of the two proceedings i.e., contemptproceedings and writ proceedingsare entirely different'The contemptpetitionwas numbered after institutionof the writ petition.Therefore, question of thepetitioner not mentioning aboutthe contemptcase in the writ affidavit does not arise.Adverting to the order dated 30.11.2021,it is stated thatbythesaidorderampleopportunitywasprovidedtothepetitionertomake payments towardsbalance sale consideration and further directed the respondentsto accePt the same.
ll.lLearnedcounselforthepetitionerhasreferredtotheconcluding paragraph of the orderdated 30.11'2021passed by this Court in W'P' No'S191 of 2O2O andsubmits therefrom that this Court had clearly expressedthe view thatSBlshouidadoptapragmatic,reasonableandaconsiderateapproach whiledealingwiththecaseofthepetitioner.ThoughnotStatedinsomany words, it is evidentthat this court had acknowiedged that there was delay in payment of the balance 7 5o/o of the sale pricebecause of the covid-19 situatlon' Therefore,libertywasgrantedtotheSBltoprovideSomemoretimetothe petitioner to makethe balancepaymentHowever, SBI has acted contrary to the letter andspirit of the aforesaid order dated 30.1 1.2021by refusing to accept the twodemanddrafts submitted by the petitioner'
13
various High Courts, including thisHigh Court, had granted more timebeyond the stipulated period for making deposit ofthe balance 7 5o/o ol the sale price because of the pandemic and lockdown, inthe present case the conduct of the petitioner would disentitle him from such a concession.He, therefore,seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
t4
there wasno path to the schedule properties' Therefore'the petitioneralieged that therewas misrepresentation on the part of SBI wherebythey had induced the petitionerto participate in the auction to his prejudice'
15
I
petitioner on his owndeposited two bank drafts with sBI.Requestwasmade to the SBI authoritiesfor accepting the demanddrafts. However, that was rej ected by the SBI.
17 . We are not inclined togrant furtherindulgenceto the petitionerfor two reasons. Firstly, thereis completecontradiction in the prayers made by the petitioner in the two writpetitions, bothfi1edby him. In the first writ petition, the prayer was made toset aside the auction sale on the ground that the petitioner was misinformed by SBI aboutthe access to the two schedule properties. Contending that therewas no approachroad to the schedule properties from the main road, consequentialprayer was made for quashingof the auction sale and returnof 25o/o of the sale price depositedby the petitioner back to him. on the other hand,prayer made in this writ petition is for a direction to the sBI toaccept the balance 7 5o/o of the saie price. If the petitioner had such serious objection to theauction saie that he wanted quashing of the same and return of25o/o of the sale price, it isnot understandable as to how thesame petitioner can insist on SBI to accept the entire sale price of the auctionsa1e, whichhe wanted to be set asideat the first phase. while in the first writ petition,petitioner sought refund ol the 25uk deposit, in the second writpetition petitioner seeks a directionto the SBI to accept 75oh of the balancesaie price. If the relief soughtfor in the presentwrit petition is accepted, then it becomesevident that the relief soughtfor by the petitioner in the first writpetition waspremisedon wrongfactual foundation, which the petitioner knew. Therefore,a view can be taken that the first writ
16
HIGH COURT
DATED:0810712022
1 e S I o
(
a
11 l]L ?[21 o rl
oof,
.A
,<a
t) t: 7P:t
ORDER
WP.No.5484 of 2022
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank was justified in rejecting the demand drafts tendered by the auction purchaser towards the balance 75% of the sale price after the extended period.
Whether a mandamus could issue directing the bank to accept the belated balance sale consideration and issue a sale certificate in respect of the auctioned properties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No.8191 of 2020Relied on¶3
5 provisions across 4 enactments
K. Chandra Sheker Reddy
State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch
Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch
Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch
Prudhvi Solar Power Projects Private Limited
Ujjal Bhuyan
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
