JUDGMENT

The petitioner participated in an auction conducted by the respondent bank to sell property belonging to the respondent bank and became the successful bidder. Admittedly the entire sale consideration has been deposited. The petitioner requested the bank to register documents in the name of certain persons who are stated to be nominees of the petitioner and who had invested money for the purpose of purchasing property in auction. The bank has refused to register sale deed in favour of any person other than the petitioner who had participated in the auction. It is thus the petitioner has before this court seeking the following reliefs:-

“(1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to immediately consider the Exhibit P6 representations of the petitioner, within a timeframe fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to immediately take steps expediate the registration proceedings and to jointly register the auctioned property in the name of the petitioner firm and its designated partners and the investors pursuant to Ext P 2, within a timeframe fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in almost identical situation in W.P (C) No.3732/2023 this court passed an interim order directing as follows:-

“The 1 st petitioner is the auction purchaser who had participated in the auction and the 2nd petitioner is a person who had parted funds for the purchase of the property along with the 1st petitioner. Since the participant at the auction was the 1st petitioner alone, the petitioners submit that the Bank will be issuing sale certificate only in favour of the 1 st petitioner while the actual purchasers are the petitioners 1 & 2 together. In the above circumstances, the 1st petitioner prays that the sale certificate may be issued in the names of both the petitioners, since the 2nd petitioner has also parted funds. The request cannot be stated to be unjustified. The Bank may be correct in their approach that they can issue a sale certificate only in the person who has participated in the auction. At the same time, there is no law which prohibits two persons from purchasing a property in which one person alone participates in the auction.

In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent Bank to issue purchase certificate in the name of petitioners 1 and 2, if they have complied with the terms of the sale.”

It is submitted that there is nothing in the auction notice which would indicate that the property cannot be registered in the name of the nominees of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is nothing in the law which would prevent the registration of sale deed in the names of persons nominated by the petitioner and in the absence of any prohibition in the law the respondent bank cannot refuse to register the document in the name of the nominees of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that since the petitioner is an entity which had taken part in the auction, the sale deed can be registered only in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of any other person. However, the learned counsel is unable to point out any provision of law which would prohibit registration of the property in the name of the nominees of the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank and finding no prohibition in any law that prevents the bank from registering documents in the name of the nominees of the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition must be allowed by directing the respondent bank to register the documents in the name of the nominees of the petitioner despite the fact that such nominees had not taken part in the auc