Back
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, P. D. AUDIKESAVALU
A. Kuppusamy – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Former Vijaya Bank, Bangalore – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to repay the deposit amount a sum of Rs.9,17,500/- along with interest at the rate of 24% based on the petitioner''s representation dated 01.12.2022.)
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner was a successful bidder in an e-auction. He has deposited 25% of the amount i.e. Rs.9,17,500/- on or about 06.08.2010. However, it appears that thereafter the third party, who has purchased the mortgaged property from the borrower, has filed Securitisation Application. The said Securitisation Application was allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The bank had filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal came to be allowed on 21.1.2015.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent bank that there was a cloud over the mortgage in the Original Application bearing O.A.No.908 of 2014. In view of that, the bank could not proceed with the sale of the property. The said OA was allowed on 15.02.20
The court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to reasonable interest over the deposited amount and considered the lack of fault in the non-execution of the sale certificate.
A writ petition seeking refund of bid amount is not maintainable when a dispute exists over the same pertaining to a Securitisation Application pending before Tribunal.
Legal heirs can seek return of the auction deposit under SARFAESI Act provisions if proceedings are delayed.
The court upheld the principle of unjust enrichment, ordering the Bank to refund the petitioner Rs.1 crore as he had no liability for the loan repayment, thus prohibiting the Bank from withholding th....
The impact of communication from the bank on the actions of auction purchasers and the compliance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules were central to the court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative remedy, based on the peculiar facts of the case....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the confirmation of sale by the secured creditor is essential, and in the absence of such confirmation, no default can be attributed to the bi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the bank's confirmation of the sale to the petitioner and notice of successfu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
