1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION No.27799/2015(GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S ABHIJEET POLYMERS PRIVATE LTD.,

A REGISTERED PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY,

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

ARCHANA COMPLEX,

# 37/12-1, 4^TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD,

BANGALORE 560027.

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

MR.SURESH KUMAR RAMSISARIA,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SRI LAKSHMI MAHILA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA,

# 3/4, LAKSHMI SADANA,

EAT STREET, GANDHI BAZAAR,

BENGALURU 560004.

2.

SRI DAMODAR SITARAM SONI,

C/O SRILAKSHMIMAHILA SAHAKARA BANK

NIYAMITHA,

# 3/4,LAKSHMI SADANA,

2

EAT STREET, GANDHI BAZAAR,

BENGALURU 560004.

3.

SMT. AMBIKA

MAJOR,

W/O SRI JAI SHANKAR,

NO.55, LOCATED AT 3^RD CROSS,

BANGIYAPPA GARDEN, 7^TH CROSS,

LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,

BENGALURU 27.

4.

SMT. KALPANA

MAJOR,

W/O SRI KANNAN,

NO.55, LOCATED AT 3^RD CROSS,

BANGIYAPPA GARDEN,

7^TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD,

SHANTHI NAGAR,

BENGALURU 27.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI A. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI H.S. DWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SRI K. PADMANABAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

****

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DIRECT THE R-1 BANK TO ACCEPT THE BID OF THE

PETITIONER, WHICH WAS THE HIGHEST COMPARED TO

THAT OF THE R-2 AT RS.2,80,00,000/- FOR COMPOSITE

PROPERTY MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AT ITEM NO.1 AND

ITEM NO.2 OF THE SALE NOTICE.

3

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for

the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ or order in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondent No.1 –

Bank to accept the bid of the petitioner,

which was the highest compared to that of

Respondent No.2, at Rs.2,80,00,000/- for

composite property, morefully described at

item Nos.1 and 2 of the sale notice;

b) To set aside the sale in favour of respondent

No.2.

c) To direct the respondent No.1 – bank to act

in accordance with condition No.4 of the

public notice, which clearly states that “the

Authorised Officer is at liberty to give an

opportunity to bid or enhance the offer by

the bidders or accept the highest bid amount

or reject/postpone the sale of the property

4

at his discretion without assigning any

reason therefor.

2. When the matter came up before this Court on

15.7.2019, Sri Paras Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the 1^st respondent issued public notice

inviting sealed tenders from the public for sale of the

immovable properties. In response to the said public

notice, the petitioner has participated after following the

procedure

as

contemplated

and

his

bid

was

for

Rs.2,63,50,000/- and the 2^nd respondent’s bid was for

Rs.2,71,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner revised his

bid for Rs.2,80,00,000/-. As per the condition No.4 of the

Tender conditions, the Authorized Officer is at liberty to

give an opportunity to bid or enhance the offer by the

bidders or accept the highest bid amount or reject/postpone

the sale of the property at his discretion without assigning

any reason therefor. Therefore the petitioner’s counsel

contended that when the petitioner offered the highest bid,

5

the respondent No.1 ought to have accepted the same in

view of Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)

Rules, 2002.

3. Per contra, Sri R. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel

for the Respondent No.1 – bank contended on the earlier

occasion that on the date of opening of the tenders i.e., on

30.6.2015 itself, the petitioner had withdrawn the Earnest

Money Deposit in terms of Annexure – R27 and R28 and

specifically stated that the petitioner has received cheque

on the