JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Canara Bank is conducting sale of the secured assets by resorting to the provisions of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. This is being done under the e-

auction.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent-Canara Bank had demanded an amount of Rs.100 Crores which is already paid. It is further argued that an amount of Rs.7.15 Crores was demanded, but an amount of Rs.7.59 crores was actually paid to the respondent Bank. It is further argued that the respondent Bank had also demanded an amount of Rs.10.93 crores in the year March, 2005 and an amount of Rs.7.42 crores was paid to the said Bank. It is further argued that in the year 2017, an amount of Rs.4.19 lakhs was paid to the respondent Canara Bank.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment in the matter of Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patil Vs. Shripal Balwant Rainade & Others reported in ((1988) 3 SCC 298) and contended that rule of Damdupat is an equitable rule debarring the creditor to recover at any given time, the amount of inte