The Court emphasized the need for reasons in an order, the safeguarding of the interests of innocent third parties, and the compliance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the disposal of cases related to banks and financial institutions.

JUDGMENT

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J. - Writ Petition No.14396 of 2023 is filed questioning the inaction for passing orders in S.A.No.149 of 2023, particularly the vacate stay petition, which has not been heard and the delay that is occurring in the disposal of the case. The further question raised is about the direction for payment of 10 monthly installments contrary to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act")

2. The connected Writ Petition No.15220 of 2023 is filed by the auction purchaser questioning the inaction of the respondent bank in not receiving the balance sale consideration.

3. With the consent of all the learned counsel the matter was taken up for hearing. The facts are not seriously in dispute. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.14396 of 2023 was issued a notice under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and they brought to sale a particular property. The amount outstanding as on 31/10/2021 is Rs.4, 53, 38, 599.00 along with interest from 1/11/2021 and other charges etc. The auction notice was issued on 20/2/2023. The 5th respondent in this writ petition, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15220 of 2023 is the successful bidder. The auction was completed on 24/3/2023. The highest bid is for Rs.8, 65, 00, 000.00 against the reserve price of Rs.7.35 crores.

4. The two essential grievances urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.14396 of 2023 is that virtually an installment decree has been granted by the DRT in this matter. As per the said order dtd. 17/3/2023, which is now impugned, stay was granted in I.A.No.480 of 2023 in S.A.No.149 of 2023 on the condition that the petitioner therein (who is the 1st respondent herein), shall deposit Rs.40.00lakhs on or before 24/3/2023, further Rs.40.00 Lakhs on or before 30/4/2023 and the balance outstanding in equal monthly installments. It is thus pointed out that 10 months time has been granted for payment of the amount. Learned counsel submits that as per Sec. 17 (5) of the SARFAESI Act the entire case should be disposed of within 60 days from the date of application. Even if time was to be extended on just and proper cause as recorded in writing the overall limit is four months as per this Sec. . Therefore, learned counsel submits that the Court committed an error in granting such a long period and also installments. In addition, he submits that it is clearly pleaded in counter affidavit filed that a successful bid was filed by the 5th respondent herein. Learned counsel points out that as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the rules, the balance amounts have to be deposited by the bidder within the stipulated period of 90 days by the bidder, failing which he would suffer serious loss. It is pointed out that despite the counter being filed and the reply filed to the same, the matter is not being taken up and are disposed, therefore the writ is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment of a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in WP No.3189 of 2022. In particular he points out to para 12 about the manner and method in which such interim order should be passed.

6. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is nothing wrong with the said order and that they are already complying with the same, and almost the entire loan has been discharged. Therefore he submits that no fault can be led at the door steps of the DRT and that an endeavor was to seek recovery of the money and that is being accomplished in legal manner. Therefore, Sri N.Siva Reddy opposes the prayer.

7. Learned counsel for the auction purchaser, who is also the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15220 of 2023, Sri T. Anup Kumar, learned counsel argues that his rights as a bidder are being seriously impaired since he has become the successful bidder in the auction and the rules permit only 90 day period for the payment of the money. COURT: