SETH INDUSTRIES Vs. VIJAY BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is preferred seeking writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to refund Rs. 34 lakhs to the petitioner along with 18 % interest and to quash the notice/order dated 27.2.2012, whereby the amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Sri Narender Singh S/o Sri Sukhbir Singh, Proprietor of Mars Pharmaceuticals took loan from the bank, however, he was unable to repay the loan, therefore, was declared NPA; bank has earlier issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and thereafter, while exercising the power under Section 13 (4) of the Act, has taken factory and machinery of M/s Mars Pharmaceuticals in the control and possession; vide advertisement dated 12.3.2010, bids were invited to sell the plant and machinery and the property of M/s Mars Pharmaceuticals, Plot No. 41-45, Mini Indl Estate, VIII, Pipli-Laksar, District Haridwr on the basis of "AS IS WHERE IS" and "AS IS WHAT IS" condition. The petitioner submitted his bid for Rs. Sixty Lakhs; the petitioner has deposited Rs. Twenty Lakhs on the date of opening and accepting the bid and later on again deposited Rs. Twenty Lakhs; the petitioner wrote letters to the bank on several dates including on 23.3.2012 pointing out certain irregularities therein, which read as under :

(3.) Vide letter dated 4.4.2012, the petitioner was informed by the bank that property was auctioned on "AS IS WHERE IS" and "AS IS WHAT IS" basis and all the prospective buyers were given opportunity to undertake physical inspection of the assets before submission of bids, therefore, irregularities pointed out by the petitioner are not sufficient to give more time to the petitioner to deposit balance Rs. Twenty Lakhs out of Rs. Sixty Lakhs; on 27.7.2012, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner through Advocate of the bank that since the petitioner has failed to deposit balance Rs. Twenty Lakhs and plant and machinery of Rs. Six Lakhs have been removed by the petitioner, therefore, balance Rs. Thirty-four Lakhs deposited by the petitioner are forfeited. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.