CANARA BANK Vs. SUBRAMANYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shetty Vignesh Shivaram for the appellant, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Aditya Sondhi with learned Advocate Mr. A.S. Ravikumar for respondent Nos.1 and 2 appearing on caveat, at length.

(2.) The appellant herein is the Canara Bank-original respondent No.1 in the writ petition filed by the respondents herein. The appellant-Bank has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 12/1/2024 passed by learned Single Judge. 2.1 Allowing the petition in part, a mandamus came to be issued to the respondent-appellant Bank to refund the amount of Rs.3.25 crores to the petitioner. It was directed to pay the interest on the said amount if the Bank fails to provide the details of second auction and confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchasers, to the petitioner.

(3.) The facts in the back drop may be noticed in a nutshell. The appellant Bank conducted e-auction on 29/11/2021 of the property described as No.19, 11th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru. The auction was conducted by the appellant Bank under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, seeking to recover the amount due. The petitioners participated and purchased the property as successful bidder paying Rs.3.25 crores which was 25% of the bid amount. The balance 75% amount to the extent of Rs.9.75 crores was to be paid within 15 days as per the condition of the bid towards final bid amount.