Important Point—Court cannot remain mute spectator to any kind of nefarious practice.

A. Arumughaswamy, Chairperson—One Third Party Intervener by name Mahendra Kumar has filed the petition for setting aside the sale which had taken place on 23.2.2011 and the bid dated 11.5.2007. The Recovery Officer has passed an order setting aside the sale against which the respective parties filed Appeals before the D.R.T. The D.R.T. allowed the application holding that the sale which is conducted is illegal against which the present Appeal has been filed. Mahendra Kumar has filed Appeal No. 51/2009; Banker has filed Appeal No. 4/2010 and auction purchaser has filed Appeal No. 5/2010 against the order passed by the Recovery Officer. Later on after the disposal of these three matters, the Appeal has been filed being No. 303/2010 by the Banker and Appeal No. 192 of 2009 is filed by the Banker and both the Appeals are pending. Both the Appeal Nos. 72/2009 and 299/2010 filed by Mahendra Kumar have been disposed off as withdrawn. The other Appeal Nos. 18, 19, and 20 of 2013 filed by the borrower were dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. The Counsel appearing for the Bank contended that the Bank has advanced several crores of rupees and one property was auctioned for Rs. 9.56 crores on 11.5.2007. As per the Recovery Certificate the dues are Rs. 10,08,32,8935.54ps. and Rs. 16,45,32,827.46ps. On the date of auction, there was inerrant amongst the parties not to bid in the auction for more than specified amount of Rs. 9.60 Crores and they could not increase the amount already fixed by them. As such the auction has taken place as per rules before Recovery Officer. Whereas to reduce the auction amount, there is a Cartel Agreement also entered in between the respective parties. The bidders, who assembled at attorney’s office, drafted a Cartel Agreement fixing the upper ceiling limit for the property which is actionable before Recovery Officer in future day by fixing the upper limit as Rs. 9.61 Crores, for which, for the remaining four bidders, the successful bidder, who is going to knock down the property for sum of Rs. 9.61 Crores, has to pay Rs. 2.50 Crores for not to participate in the auction. This fact was known to the Bank at later stage. The auction price will not reflect the real saleable marketable price. Hence he prays that the Appeal has to be allowed. The order of the Recovery Officer has to be restored.

3. The Counsel appearing for the auction purchasers contended that at any point of time, no inter se Agreement had taken place among the parties and it is not correct to say that both the persons joined together not to bid before the Recovery Officer. Even that so called Agreement has entered into in between the parties in the light of the judgment, it is not a ground to cancel the sale on which the Bank is expecting. The Counsel appearing for the Respondent further contends that even though Mahendra Kumar quoted that Rs. 12.00 Crores is saleable price, he has not deposited the amount before the Court. The sale has been challenged after lapse of 6 months. Hence he prayed that the Appeal has to be dismissed. Therefore mere on sale price sale and the view of Recovery Officer is not correct and valid in the eyes of law.

4. The Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 contends that when he came to know about the cartel of the Agreement, he has filed application on deposit of Rs. 1.00 Crore along with the cartel agreement as eye opener how the mis-deeds are happening in the Court at the time of auction sale before the Recovery Officer and present illustration is example. He further contended that to bring this scandal to the world, he has asked to deposit Rs. 1.00 Crore and he has been asked to bring bidders by the Recovery Officer. So much of loss of interest because of the inherent delay in disposing these matters by the Court. He has no other option, but to withdraw his Appeal and he prays for the refund of Rs. 1.00 Crore with interest. The Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 contends that because of the Cartel Agr