Judgment :

1. These are the applications for seeking certain directions in view of the subsequent developments after the order passed on 5.7.2012.

2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Central Bank of India, respondent No. 1.3. Before we advert to order dated 5.7.2012, it is necessitous to refer to order dated 27.3.2012. In the said order, after referring to the order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 2689 and other connected matters, the interim order passed by this Court on 25.11.2011, recording the contentions of Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Central Bank of India and taking note of the chart produced in respect of the dues of the Central Bank of India, Standard Chartered Bank and Workmen through Official Liquidator, this Court passed the following order:-“It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that in fitness of things and regard being had to the concept of obtaining of the highest price in Court sale, having of auction is the warrant and, therefore, auction should be directed to be held. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the property is likely to fetch much more amount than that has been deposited by the petitioners.

Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel would contend that the sale had been giveneffect to in the year 2006 on acceptance of 2.5 crores and with the efflux of time if there has been a price rise solely on the said base a public auction should not be directed.

Be it noted that at one point of time, a third party had deposited 6 crores to purchase the property but later on he withdrew as the matter was litigated in Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the totality of the circumstances, we issue the following directions:-

(i) The property in question be put to auction by issuing a public advertisement in at least two newspapers one in English and another in Kannada language having wide circulation in the city of Mysore inviting bids for the sale of the property.

(ii) It shall be mentioned in the advertisements that the reserve price is 3 crores and the same shall be deposited before the Recovery Officer of the DRT to enable one to participate in the bid.

(iii) Any one who would not deposit the amount would not be permitted to participate in the auction as speculative bids are to be totally avoided.

(iv) The newspaper publication shall be made within a period of two weeks stipulating that the deposit is a condition precedent for participation in the auction which shall be made before the DRT within a week from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspaper.

(v) The auction shall be held within a period of two weeks from the issuance of the advertisement which shall state the specified time and place for the auction.

(vi) The petitioners without prejudice to the contentions to be raised and dealt with in these Special Leave Petitions shall participate in the bid without the deposit as they have purchased the property in the year 2006.

(vii) The bid shall not be finalized and the bid sheet shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover. We reiterate at the cost of repetition that the above arrangements are subject to the result of the final adjudication in these Special Leave Petitions. List the matter after five weeks.”4. After the said order was passed two Interlocutory Applications forming Nos. 4-6 of 2012 were filed. This Court, looking at the facts and the contentions raised, passed the following order on the said applications:-“These applications were preferred by the Bank stating that going by the present valuation the property will fetch nearly Rs.10 crore whereas the order stipulates Reserved Price only Rs.3 crores. Hence, the Bank has sought modification of the upset price fixed by the Court.

Learned counsel for the Bank also submitted that as per t