IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Mr. V. Bhaskar and Ors. – Petitioners
Vs
The Authorised Officer IDBI Bank Limited and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.18264 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2018
MANDAMUS - Real Estate Dispute - SARFAESI Act 2002, Contract Act 1872 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus against the bank, citing a lack of constitutional/statutory right. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to direct one-time settlement or reschedule loans, as it is a contractual matter. The court directed the prospective purchaser to pay the entire amount in two equated installments to show bonafides, and upon compliance, directed the bank to return the property documents to enable the sale.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed a writ petition seeking mandamus against the bank to consider the sale of the property to a prospective purchaser for a specified amount. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of constitutional/statutory right and the contractual nature of loan recovery matters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition seeking mandamus against the bank was misconceived due to the absence of a constitutional/statutory right. The court also emphasized that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to direct one-time settlement or reschedule loans, as it is a contractual matter.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the writ petition seeking mandamus against the bank for the sale of the property to a prospective purchaser.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of constitutional/statutory right for the petitioner to enforce against the bank, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to direct one-time settlement or reschedule loans, as it is a contractual matter.
Final Decision: The court directed the prospective purchaser to pay the entire amount in two equated installments to show bonafides, and upon compliance, directed the bank to return the property documents to enable the sale.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
On 16th July, 2018, we passed the following order.
“Material on record discloses that earlier, when the tenant filed W.P.No.1032 of 2018, for a mandamus, directing the respondent/IDBI Bank Ltd., to pay the security/caution deposit paid by Saraswathi/petitioner therein, for a sum of Rs.10,50,000/-, as the petitioner is willing to vacate the tenancy premises, situated at No.244/2B, Flat No.207, Block No.D, 2nd Floor, Marigold Apartment, Raheja Enclave, Race Course, Coimbatore 641 018, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that they would require three months time to pay the loan amount to the Bank. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 have no objection to sell the property directly, but the upset price be fixed not less than Rs.1.25 crores. Bank counsel did not agree for the above said submission.
2. Placing on record the above and taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide, order, dated 5/3/2018, this Court dismissed as follows:-
“As there is no constitutional/statutory right, to be enforced by the petitioner/tenant against bank, writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed.”
3. Though the borrowers/guarantors submitted that the entire loan amount would be discharged within three months time, the same has not been done.
4. After the disposal of the writ petition, e-auction sale notice, dated 27/3/2018, has been issued by IDBI Bank, for an outstanding amount of Rs.2,77,42,251.50, along with further interest and other expenses/costs thereon, with effect from 1st November 2017. E-auction has been fixed, on 17/4/2018. Reserve price has been fixed at Rs.111 lakhs.
5. Pursuant to the E-auction sale notice, dated 27/3/2018, one Mr.N.Harisankar, has sent a representation, dated 25/4/2018, to the Authorised Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd., Coimbatore, stating that he had arranged for a third party purchaser, to purchase the house property for Rs.111 lakhs and willing to deposit Rs.10,50,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit. According to him, balance amount of Rs.15.50 lakhs would be deposited within thirty days, from the date of taking possession from the tenant. For the sake of convenience, letter, dated 25/4/2018, is reproduced hereunder:-
“I am N. Harisankar, aged about 43 years, S/o. V.Natarajan (late), Hindu Religion, presently residing in the above address and I am submitting my offer directly for the second time with you on the captioned subject.
As M. Hemasree is my family friend and she is known to me very much and her husband Mr. V. Bhaskar is medically sick and very much unstable due to cardiac arrest, I am helping her by buying her house property for Rs.111.00 lacs, although the flat is not worth for the price in the present market conditions, as there is no car parking facility for this flat and the flat is over 12 years old.
I know Smt. Saraswathy the tenant is living there since 2010, therefore, I am willing to buy the property un-encumbered only. Hence it will be easy for the Bank to vacate her by releasing her security deposit of Rs.10,50,000/- by way of two demand drafts (one for Rs.9 lakhs and another for Rs.1.5 lacs. I am also ready to deposit a demand draft for Rs.5.00 lacs in the name of the IDBI Bank Ltd.
I request the Bank to release Rs.9.00 lacs demand draft to that lady after taking an under taking to vacate the house in 30 days and also request the Bank to release the second DD of Rs.1.5 lacs to her upon collecting the house key from her.
Once the Bank is intimating me the possession of the property, in about 30 days of time, I will deposit with the Bank the rest amount due after deducting Rs.15.50 lacs.
I also request the Bank to issue an NOC in the Sub-Registrar's name of the concerned jurisdiction, such that I can get the property sold and registered in my name from the property owners.
Once I get the reply from your side, I will send the demand drafts to you, such that the Bank can get the tenant vacated and can collect the key of the
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal
Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited
Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.