Point of Law: Sale of properties is confirmed in favour of petitioner at Rs.3,00,51,425/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,80,51,425/- has already been paid to the secured creditor and is acknowledged to have been received by secured creditor.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

(Prayer: W.P.No.3395 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in its proceedings dated 02.8.2019 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and to consequently direct the respondent to refund the sum of Rs.1,42,27,500/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of auction sale conducted on 16.04.2019 till the date of realisation.

W.P.No.1782 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Letter dated 31.8.2019 issued by the respondent forfeiting the amount paid by the petitioner towards purchase price with the respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to receive the balance sale price in a sum of Rs.1,26,82,500/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty Two Thousands and Five Hundred only) from the petitioner and complete the procedures pertaining to the sale process in pursuance of the Letter of Confirmation issued by the respondent dated 16.4.2019, in respect of the properties more fully mentioned in the description of the properties in the said Letter of Confirmation dated 16.4.2019 and as is mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto.

W.P.No.1785 of 2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the E-Auction sale notice dated 7.1.2021 issued by the respondent by way of newspaper publication in Dinakaran, 13.1.2021 edition having circulation in Salem for the auction scheduled on 29.1.2021 in so far as the properties comprised in the description column of Sl.No.3 of the same and more fully described in the schedule appended hereto, quash the same.)

1. The matter falls within a small conspectus and the parties have left it to the Court to indicate the final amount that should be paid by the auction-purchaser petitioner to the respondent secured creditor.

2. The auction of the immovable properties was conducted on April 15, 2019. The petitioner’s bid was the highest and a letter was issued by the secured creditor to the petitioner on April 16, 2019 confirming that the petitioner was the highest bidder at the auction. The amount bid was Rs.2,69,10,000/-.

3. The petitioner appears to have paid of the earnest money deposit of approximately 10% amounting to Rs.26,80,000/- immediately after the sale. A further sum of Rs.40,47,500/- was paid by May 31, 2019 together with another tranche of Rs.75 lakh. It is the admitted position that by or about May 31, 2019, a total amount of Rs.1,42,27,500/- had been paid, leaving a balance of about Rs.1.27 crore.

4. Upon the petitioner’s failure to tender the balance consideration within a reasonable time, the bank sought to forfeit the amount paid and threatened the petitioner to conduct a further auction-sale of the properties. A notice in such regard was issued by the secured creditor to the petitioner on August 31, 2019. However, it does not appear that any steps were taken by the secured creditor to re-sell the properties or that any bid in such regard has been received, far less any payment on account thereof.

5. By or about March 4, 2021, the petitioner tendered a further sum of Rs.1,38,23,925/-, thus taking the total payment made by the petitioner in respect of the properties to Rs.2,80,51,425/- which included an excess amount of Rs.11,41,425/-.

6. When the matter was taken up on the last occasion, the Court suggested that to end the disputes between the parties, the petitioner may be required to pay interest for the delay in tendering the balance consideration in the event the secured creditor was agreeable to receive such additional amo