ABRAHAM VALOOKADAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19811 of 2012 is the appellant. He challenged Ext.P2 proclamation of sale inter alia contending that the 'upset price' fixed is too low and the property has a substantial value of more than Rs.1.5 Crores. According to him, if private sale is permitted to be conducted, the property will fetch the market value and that he will be in a position to settle the liability with a portion of the said amount.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that it is not open for the Court to interfere in the matter and the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate forum for challenging the upset price fixed. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Bank for conducting private sale.

(3.) IT is submitted that the sale in terms of Ext.P1 proclamation could not be conducted because of certain defects in the proclamation and therefore the property has to be proclaimed for sale afresh. Hence we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in this matter. The learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to pay the amount due to the Bank. It is always open for the appellant to approach the Bank seeking time as claimed now and it is always open for him to approach the Bank for conducting private sale of the property if possible. In that view of the matter, we do not think that any interference is called for with reference to the above judgment and hence the appeal is dismissed.