Back
SRI. J. KAMATCHI PANDIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
WP 909/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.909 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. J. KAMATCHI PANDIAN
S/O JAYARAM RATHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/A NO.16, 1ST CROSS,
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU 3 560 046.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
INDIAN BANK,
DODDA BANASWADI BRANCH,
NO.9, GREEN PLAZA, 1ST FLOOR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
DODDA BANASWADI,
BENGALURU 3 560 043.
2.
THE CHIEF MANAGER (LAW)
INDIAN BANK ZONAL OFFICE,
NO.26/27, RAHEJA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2
3.
THE GENERAL MANAGER
INDIAN BANK ZONAL OFFICE,
NO.26/27, RAHEJA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.09.2015 AS
ADDRESSED BY THE R-1 TO THE PETITIONER VIDE
ANNXURE-M AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2016
PASSED
BY
THE
DEBTS
RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL,
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE IN S.A.NO.457/2015 AS PER
ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the legality
and correctness of communication dated 04.09.2015
vide Annexure-M issued by respondent No.1-Bank and
also its confirmation by Debt Recovery Tribunal in
SA.No.457/2015 dated 18.11.2016, Annexure-N and has
also sought to quash the same being is illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to law.
3
2.
It is the case of petitioner that one M/s. Sai
Abivrudhi Infrastructures Pvt Ltd., had borrowed certain
money from respondent No.1-Bank and committed
default in repayment of loan. Accordingly, the bank
initiated
proceedings
under
Section
14
of
the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after
referred as the 8SARFAESI Act9) and consequently the
sale process was commenced by the bank under Rule 6
of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Based
on which, a public notice came to be issued which was
published on 03.06.2015 vide Annexure-A, wherein the
secured assets were intended to disposed of by
conducting e-auction and accordingly date was fixed for
inspection of the property on 07.07.2015 and payment
of EMD (Earnest Money Deposit) by 08.07.2015. The
date of auction was fixed on 10.07.2015 vide Annexure-
A which was issued on 03.06.2015.
4
3.
Petitioner herein is one of the bidders who
was participated in e-auction. The bid amount quoted by
the petitioner was Rs.50.13 lakhs as against the
reserved price of Rs.41.38 lakhs. Petitioner being the
highest bidder was accepted and the petitioner was
called upon to deposit 25% of the total bid amount. At
the time of submitting e-Tender and the said amount
was calculated as Rs.12,53,250/-. After confirmation,
25% of the total bid amount including EMD(Earnest
Money Deposit) which amount was calculated as
Rs.12,53,250/-, out of which 10% of the EMD was paid
at the time of submitting e-Tender which was deducted
at Rs.4,14,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner had paid
25% of the total bid amount i.e., Rs.12,53,250-
4,14,000/-=8,39,250/-. The balance 75% of the bid
amount was deposited after confirmation of the sale and
petitioner to be put in physical possession of the
property. Petitioner being the highest bidder and being
5
successful in the auction, Annexure-B came to be issued
by respondent No.1-Bank calling upon the petitioner for
payment of balance amount of 25% of the bid amount,
failing which, the bid will be accepted/conferred on the
second successful bidder and petitioner would stand to
forfeit the EMD.
4.
Pursuant to
