SARFAESI--Auction Sale--Confirmation of sale of secured assets by bank-- Writ Petition against such an action of Bank is not maintainable

JUDGMENT

Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.:- The petitioners through the instant writ petition pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned sale notice dated 06.03.2018, Annexure P.1 and all proceedings and actions taken by respondent No.1-State Bank of India consequent and pursuant thereto, including auction proceedings dated 20.04.2018, Annexure P.2, sale confirmation letter dated 23.04.2018, Annexure P.3, qua house No.315, Sector-9, Panchkula being wholly, arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust, thereby causing undue loss to them. Direction has also been sought to respondent No.1-Bank to consider the offer of a much higher price of Rs. 2.05 crore than the auction price of Rs. 1,81,50,000/- for the house in question.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Petitioners No.1 and 2 were owners of residential house No. 315, Sector-9, Panchkula which was mortgaged as collateral security for availing loan from respondent No1- bank. The loan was availed by M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited in which son of the petitioner No.2 and brother of petitioner No.1 is one of the Directors. M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited defaulted in re-payment of the loan. Respondent No.1-bank in exercise of powers under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”) issued the notice under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the said Act and also took symbolic possession. Thereafter, part physical possession of the house in question was also taken by respondent No.1-bank. Since, the borrower-M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited who had entered into one time settlement with respondent No.1-bank and had failed to honour the terms thereto, the bank had put the properties to sale, including the only residential house i.e. House No. 315, Sector-9, Panchkula where the petitioners were residing. In pursuance to the sale notice, auction proceedings took place on 20.04.2018 and for the property situated in the prime location/sector of Panchkula. Respondents No.2 and 3 jointly were the sole participants and were the only bidder. Against the reserve price of Rs. 1,81,00,000/-, a bid of Rs. 1,81,50,000/- was received. According to the petitioners, despite having received only one bid for the residential house in question, the sale was confirmed by the bank vide sale confirmation letter dated 23.04.2018. The petitioners allege that respondent No.1-bank acted in collusion with the bidder and wrongly confirmed the sale. According to the petitioners, the market value of the residential house in question with latest design and construction is much higher than the reserve price fixed by respondent No.1-Bank or the price offered by the bidder. Respondents No. 2 and 3-auction purchasers, who had made an offer of ` 1,81,50,000/-, had paid only 50% of the said amount. Against the cancellation of one time settlement by the bank, M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited had filed CWP No. 7559 of 2018 in this Court on 20.03.2018. During the pendency of Rs. the said writ petition, respondent No.1-bank carried out the auction proceedings vide notice dated 06.03.2018. Since the petitioners were residing in the said residential house and had no other place to go, respondent No.1-bank had filed CWP No. 16811 of 2018 in this Court seeking directions to the Tehsildar, Panchkula to help in getting possession of the said house. Upon notice, petitioners No. 1 and 2 appeared. The petitioners offered to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crore as against the offer of Rs. 1,81,50,000/- made by respondent No.2-auction purchaser. The petitioners had arranged the draft for a sum of Rs. 2 crore and the said amount was paid to the bank in Court. CWP No. 16811 of 2018 filed by bank came up for hearing on 06.09.2018 alongwith CWP No. 7559 of 2018 filed by M/s Swami Automobiles Private Limited against the cancellation of one time settleme