G.S. Sistani, J.:-

CAV 1180/2015

1. Mr.Sethi, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions from the counsel for the respondents, enters appearance on behalf of the respondents.

2. Accordingly, caveat petition stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 26438/2015

3. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

4. Application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 10488/2015

5. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this matter is heard at the admission stage itself.

6. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 read with Article 227of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 28.10.2015 passed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the “AAIFR”), by which an Order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Board for Industrial And Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the “BIFR”) by which the application (M.A. No. 424/BC/2010) filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. In M.A. No. 424/BC/2010 the petitioner made the following prayers:

“Direct ASC to withdraw the cancellation of the proposed sale and not to forfeit the EMD amount as have been conveyed by it vide its letter dated 25.06.2010.

Direct ASC to provide the applicant with the four pending documents as enumerated at para 16 of the application.

Director ASC to complete the sale transaction after public notice is taken out by the applicant.

Direct ASC / M/s.Kamani Tubes Ltd. that the scheduled property be transferred to the applicant free from all encumbrances with a clear marketable title.

Direct ASC to maintain status quo till the disposal of the instant application.”

7. The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present petition, are that BIFR sanctioned a scheme for revival of respondent No. 1 and appointed respondent No. 2 as the monitoring agency. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 22.2.2010 published by Assets Sale Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “ASC”) in the Business Line newspaper, bids were invited for sale of the property having an area of 1,26,540 sq. ft. bearing Survey No. 195/1 and 195/2, situated in Mahadevapura Village, Krishnarajpuram Hobli, Bangalore, South Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “subject property”). The petitioner participated in the said bid and on 8.3.2010 submitted a bid for Rs. 20,24,67,000/- for the purchase of the aforesaid property. Rs. 30,000,00/- was paid by the petitioner as Earnest Money Deposited (herein after referred to as “EMD”). This amount was subsequently increased to Rs. 25,20,00,777/-.

8. According to the petitioner, the EMD was furnished by the petitioner with a specific understanding that the documents required for conducting due diligence with respect to the subject property would be provided within a few days. After the bids were opened, since the petitioner was found to be the highest bidder, petitioner was called for negotiations.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that the desired documents required by the petitioner for conducting due diligence were not be supplied to him. Petitioner claims to have written emails to respondent No. 1 to provide the documents, as detailed in the email dated 18.3.2010. It is further the case of the petitioner that as per the condition of NIT, the land was to be converted from agricultural to non-agricultural as per the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioner also claims to have visited the office of respondent No. 2 at Mumbai on 30.3.2010, claiming requisite documents. Despite promises having been made, the documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner also claims to have followed up the matter with the ASC. Reminders were issued. Although as per the Minutes of the Meeting dated 10.5.2010 the ASC had promised to supply at least four documents within three or four days, they were not supplied to the petitioner. On the one hand the bid of the petitioner was cancelled on 25.6.2010. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the BIFR seeking stay