Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ, SUNDER MOHAN, J
M.Kodeeswaran – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
W.P.No.25974 of 2022
For the Appellant: Mrs.Hema Sampath Senior Counsel, Ms.R.Meenal
For the Respondents: Mr.M.L.Ganesh, Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
The court ruled that disputes regarding factual allegations must be resolved in a suit, not under Article 226, ensuring proper legal channels are followed for recouping alleged losses.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petitioner seeks refund for money paid for property in an e-auction conducted by the bank; issues relate to due diligence, fraud by the bank, and property title complications. (Paras 2, 3, 5)
(B) Jurisdiction of the Court - Disputed questions of fact arise, and petitioner's remedy lies in filing a suit against the bank to recoup losses. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of petition is ordered with no cost implications.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks refund for auction payment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of bank fraud discussed. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. disputed facts require resolution through a suit. (Para 5) |
Petitioner is seeking return of money paid by him for purchasing a property in the e-auction conducted by respondent bank on 18.09.2018. Pursuant to an e-auction notice issued by the bank, petitioner bid for the property bearing Flat No.CS1 of Block-C, Second Floor, MVM Aparajithapurai, Door No.5, 3rd Main Road, Manikandapuram, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062 and petitioner was declared as successful bidder. Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.28,80,000/- to the bank.
2. Initially, loan was granted and auction was conducted by State Bank of Mysore, which has since got merged with State Bank of India. Petitioner was also handed over physical possession of the residential flat, but the sale certificate was not registered. In January, 2019, it is stated, CBI officials visited petitioner's apartment and made enquiries. Petitioner was informed that State Bank of India has filed a criminal case and an FIR dated 29.12.2017 has been registered against various persons including the person who had borrowed money for the purchase of the said flat. It came to light, when the Tahsildar of Avadi, sixth respondent visited the flat, that the land belonged to Government of Tamil Nadu, it was built on a waterbody and the entire apartment/block was going to be demolished. Petitioner was told to vacate the premises. Petitioner states he had to vacate the said flat.
3. Ms. Sampath submitted that petitioner having borrowed Rs.28,80,000/- to pay for the flat is a sufferer. The bank has played a fraud on petitioner and had the bank done due diligence, bank would have got to know that the apartment block was constructed on a waterbody. Counsel submitted that bank has played a fraud without disclosing that there was a CBI complaint filed and there were these complications with regard to the said flat.
4. Mr.Ganesh appearing for the bank submits that counter has been filed and all these allegations have been denied. Mr.Ganesh submitted that the FIR lodged against various individuals was for submitting forged documents while granting loan and has nothing to do with the title to the property. Mr.Ganesh states even the bank is a victim of the fraud and certainly, this Court cannot grant a relief as sought exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Having considered the pleadings and heard the counsel, certainly disputed questions of facts arise. In our view, petitioner should file a suit against the bank to recoup petitioner's alleged loss. We express no opinion on merits. All rights and contentions are kept open.
6. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
