THOMAS CHACKO Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner says that he was the auction purchaser of a property belonging to respondents 4 to 7, which had been equitably mortgaged by them in favour of 1st respondent - Bank while availing of certain loans, in a sale conducted by the said Bank on 12.03.2007.

(2.) The petitioner says that the sale was challenged by the owners of the property before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (DRT for short) and their Securitisation Application, which has been numbered as S .A. No. 55/2007 and renumbered as TSA No. 1198/2016, was allowed by the DRT through Ext. P2 order. The petitioner says that in Ext. P2 order, the DRT also made a provision that along with the sale consideration the Bank must also consider compensating him appropriately. The petitioner, therefore, says that the Bank be directed to defray the expenses incurred by him as well as to pay interest at the rate of 18% from 12.03.2007 till the date of payment along with costs, as has been demanded by him in Ext. P3.

(3.) Sri Philip Varghese, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7, submits that even though his clients have not been mulcted with any liability to pay interest by the DRT, in order to obtain a quietus to the whole controversy, they are willing to offer 7.5% interest on the sale consideration deposited by the petitioner, until it is actually refunded by the Bank. He says that this offer is being made, so that his clients will not be dragged into any further controversy in this matter. He, however, submits that his clients are not responsible for the stamp duty with respect to the sale document executed by the Bank, consequent to the sale, in favour of the petitioner or for the costs incurred by him.