CAV ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“PRAYER

The honourable court may be pleased to

I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and cancel the e-auction sale dated 30-1-2025 (Anx.B) and to quash the sale certificate (Anx. G) dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in respect of non agricultural immovable property situated in Jeppinamogoru Village of Mangalore Taluk within Sub District registration of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District and comprised in R.S No. 92- 2A3 [Shown as 92-2A3P55 in RTC] converted to the extent of 10 cents together with residential building bearing D.No.4-161/1(1), 4-161/1(2) & 4-160/1.

II. refund the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- deposited by the Petitioner at 18% p.a. from the date of auction till payment

III. Direct the Respondents to reimburse/pay the medical expenses of $10,00,000/- incurred by the petitioner for the treatment of his wife;

IV. Further direct the respondent to pay the litigation costs borne by the petitioner in this regard;

V. grant costs and other reliefs as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.01.2025, the respondent/Bank made a publication in the newspaper regarding E-auction of non agricultural immovable property situated in Jeppinamogoru Village of Mangalore Taluk within Sub District registration of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The petitioner had participated in the auction. On 30.01.2025, the Bank had confirmed the sale of the property and accepted bid of Rs.65,65,000/-. Immediately, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-. On 31.01.2025, the Bank had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bank had not given possession of the property to the petitioner. The petitioner was kept in a position of uncertainty wherein he was made liable to repay the bank loan, but was denied any legal title, possession or ownership rights to the property concerned. Despite complying with the financial obligations, the respondent/bank had failed and neglected to hand over the physical possession of the said property to the petitioner. Hence, a legal notice was issued to the respondent/Bank on 01.05.2025. It is stated that the wife of the petitioner being shocked of the developments suffered a stroke on 27.05.2025 and was admitted in Father Muller Medical College Hospital from 27.05.2025 to 12.06.2025. It is stated that the petitioner has paid EMI of an amount of Rs.34,713/- for the months of February and March as well as Rs.5,191/- in April, apart from the deposit of Rs.26,00,000/-. It is stated that the respondents have sent a letter to the petitioner on 29.09.2025 along with the sale certificate dated 20.03.2025. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent/Bank, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conducting the auction, it is the duty of the respondents to give the physical possession of the property to the petitioner. It is the contention that the so-called auction conducted by the Bank was wholly a sham and a fraudulent transaction in gross violation of the mandatory provisions under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is stated that the petitioner was not given the possession and he has lost his money and he is made to pay the EMIs. It is stated that the Apex Court and several High Courts have consistently held that auction sale of secured assets can be cancelled if there is violation of the principles of natural justice and if the auction purchaser is not in default. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on an order passed by the Apex Court in case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Corporation Bank and Others arising out of Civil Appeal No.11269/2016 dated 25.09.2025. She had relied on paragraph No.19 which reads as follows:

“19. It is argued that the Bank has committed multiple illega