D. S. VINOD Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the letter dated 28.08.2013 vide Annexure-A and for a direction to the first respondent to refund a sum of Rs.2,82,500/- along with interest calculated at the rate of 18% from 19.07.2012 till date of refund.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent/Authorized Officer, Andhra Bank, by paper publication dated 11.06.2012 invited tenders for auctioning the property allegedly belonging to one Lakshmanrao Kulkarni for non-payment of dues to the first respondent-bank. In response to the public notice issued by the first respondent, the petitioner submitted his application intending to participate in the public auction. The third respondent published the proclamation that there are no encumbrances known to the bank on the property. Accordingly, petitioner submitted his bid. The tenders were opened on 18.07.2012. On the same day, the petitioner was declared to be the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.11,30,000/- and, by letter dated 18.07.2012, the petitioner was called upon to deposit 25% of the bid amount as per the conditions stipulated in the tender notification. It was also intimated that the sale is subject to confirmation from the competent authority. Immediately, in compliance with the sale conditions, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,82,500/- on the same day, i.e., on 18.07.2012.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that, he applied for certified copy of the encumbrance certificate in respect of the auctioned property. The jurisdictional Sub Registrar issued the certified copy of the encumbrance certificate on 19.07.2012. On perusal of the same, petitioner was shocked to see that the encumbrance certificate revealed that the property was conveyed to one K. Esha by Lakshman Rao N Kulkarni under a registered sale deed dated 25.04.2007 and the said K.Esha had in turn created a charge on 06.07.2010 in favour of the fourth respondent/City Union Bank, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru. Thus, the charge created in favour of the fourth respondent is prior in point of time to the alleged charge claimed by the first respondent. In pursuance of the encumbrance certificate, the petitioner approached the respondent bank and requested to refund the amount deposited. But the respondent Nos.1 to 3 maintained silence and refused to refund the bid amount deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner was forced to issue a legal notice dated 23.08.2012 to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The said respondents neither replied to the legal notice nor refunded the amount. But, very strangely, the first respondent issued letter dated 28.08.2013 vide Annexure-A to the effect that the sale conducted by the bank is valid one. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.