SMT. CHANDRIKA BAI Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the communications dated 17/18 -01 -2013 and 28.01.2013 which are at Annexures -A and B by which the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ - as sought by the petitioner. The brief facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2 in respect of certain dues from their borrower had brought the property belonging to the borrower to sale by e -auction. The petitioner was one of the bidders who had submitted her bid in respect of the said property. In the auction conducted on 31.10.2011, she had offered a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ - as the price. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner is stated to have noticed certain transaction between the owner of the property and one Sri A. Ramanjinappa due to which the petitioner had certain apprehension in proceeding further with the transaction. In that circumstance, the balance amount payable by the petitioner had not been deposited though a sum of Rs. 94,50,000/ - had been deposited. In the said circumstance, the respondents had cancelled the further process therein and had forfeited a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ - and refunded only a sum of Rs. 79,50,000/ -.

(2.) AT that stage, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 2009/2013. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondents had once again brought the property to sale. The petition was disposed of on 15.01.2013 granting leave to the petitioner to take part in the subsequent auction process and also make appropriate representation to the respondents for adjustment of Rs. 15,00,000/ - which had been forfeited by them towards the subsequent transaction. In the subsequent tender process dated 20.12.2012, the petitioner has once again participated and she was the successful bidder having offered a sum of Rs. 1,57,00,000/ - and the transaction has been completed and the entire price has been deposited with the respondents. In such circumstance, though at the earlier instance the petitioner had sought for adjustment of the said sum of Rs. 15,00,000/ - towards the sale consideration, presently, the petitioner is seeking refund of the said amount.

(3.) HAVING noticed the rival contentions, with regard to the provision contained in the Rules, 2002, which provides for the manner in which the auction is to be conducted and also the forfeiture in the event of the higher bidder not depositing the amount, from the decisions referred no doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances arising therein has arrived at the conclusion that the forfeiture made is justified in law. With regard to the legal position that when an auction is conducted, the deposits would have to be made in the manner as provided for i.e., the bid amount to the said extent of 25% would have to be deposited immediately and the balance would have to be deposited within the time frame cannot be in dispute.