* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 08 October 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 03 December 2024 + W.P. (C) 13770/2021 & CM APPL. 46539/2024 PAWAN KUMAR TANEJA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nazim Uddin Ahmed, Mr.

Utkarsh Bhatt, Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Mr. Aditya Shankar &

Mr. Dipak, Advocates.

versus KARUR VYASA BANK LTD. & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramesh Babu & Ms. Tanya Chowdhary, Advocates for RBI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner is invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Pass appropriate directions for the quashing of Sale Certificate dated 24.12.2013, issued and signed by the Authorized Officer of Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner;

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent no. 1 Bank to refund the sum of Rs. 9,93,752.94 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from

2013 till actual payment to the Petitioner;

c. Pass appropriate directions to Respondent No.1 for foreclosing the loan account bearing number 4103753000000457 of the Petitioner;

d. Pass appropriate directions to Respondent No. 1 to remove the freeze marked by Respondent No. 1 on the savings account Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMWOD.P. (C) 13770/2021 Page 1 of 23 number 4103172000004607 which the Petitioner maintains with the said bank;

e. Pass appropriate directions in the nature of writ to Respondent no. 2, thereby directing Respondent no. 2/ Reserve Bank of India for taking appropriate action against the arbitrary and unconscionable actions of Respondent no.1; and/or f. Pass such other/further orders in favor of the Petitioner as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and proper in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances.”

BRIEF FACTS

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent No. 1 had published an Auction Sale Notice on 30.10.2013 for conducting an E- auction on 10.12.2013, wherein the petitioner was the auction purchaser regarding the property bearing No. 53, Second Floor, Pocket-9, Sector 21, Rohini, Delhi – 110085, [Subject property]. It is averred that as per the Auction Sale Notice, the reserve price for the property in question was Rs. 28,42,000/- and to participate in the auction sale, the interested persons had to make an EMD, [Earnest Money Deposit] of Rs. 3,00,000 on or before 10.12.2013 by 11:30 am, by way of Demand Draft or RTGS in the account of respondent No. 1.

3. The petitioner with regard to the Auction Sale Notice deposited the amount of EMD with the respondent No. 1 via RTGS bearing reference No. CITIH133435000941, and participated in the e-auction sale which was conducted on 10.12.2013 and had complied with all the necessary requirements and was declared as the successful bidder. The sale certificate for the same was issued on 24.12.2013 by the respondent No. 1.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMWOD.P. (C) 13770/2021 Page 2 of 23

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he deposited Rs. 9,60,000/- including the EMD with respondent No. 1 and for the remaining amount, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the respondent No. 1 itself on 24.12.2013. The tenure of the said loan was of 15 years with an EMI, [Equally Monthly Installment] of Rs. 22,721.94/-. The petitioner paid a loan processing fee of Rs. 8,427/- via cheque No. 317847 dated 24.12.2013, drawn on Citibank N.A., to respondent No. 1. Additionally, Rs. 25,325.94/- was paid as GMRA, [Group Mortgage Redemption Assurance] insurance charges. In total, the petitioner paid Rs. 9,93,752.94/- to respondent No. 1 for the purchase of the property in question, with the remaining amount to be disbursed through a loan sanctioned by the respondent No. 1.

5. The petitioner asserts that upon reaching the subject property, he discovered that Ms. Ranju Kumari, residing at 110, Moon Light Apartment, Rohini, New Delhi, was in possession of the sub