MINESH ARVINDBHAI SHAH Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 Bank, i.e. UCO Bank, had undertaken an auction prior to 2007 of the property in question, being Bungalow No.E/40, Ayojannagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad for a sum of Rs.45.25 lac in response to the proceedings initiated by it under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') read with Rules of 2002. It is the case of the petitioners further that despite selling the property, since the respondent No.1 bank was not executing sale deed in favour of the first petitioner, Special Civil Application No.13502 of 2008 was filed before this Court for seeking direction for executing a sale deed and further reliefs. After service of process, Hon'ble Court after hearing was pleased to dispose of the petition vide order dated 23.12.2009 with a direction including execution of sale deed by respondent No.1 bank in favour of the first petitioner. Despite the said direction, since respondent No.1 bank was not adhering to nor complying with the order of this Court, Misc. Civil Application No.297 of 2010 came to be filed seeking clarification of the aforesaid order, but the Hon'ble Court did not entertain the application and issued a further direction to the respondent No.1 bank to execute sale deed within a stipulated time else, would invite a further consequence and the Misc. Civil Application was disposed of vide order dated 15.2.2010. It is only thereafter the respondent No.1 execute sale deed on 8.3.2010.

(3.) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Ravindra Shah appearing for the petitioners has taken the Court to few documents attached to the petition compilation, including the observations made by the Court in its order dated 23rd December 2009 and subsequent orders, but when the Court pointed out the circumstance as to why the petitioners remained consciously silent for all these years and approached the Court only in the year 2021, despite according to the petitioners, they have finalized the transaction way back in 2007. But, instead of responding to the query of the Court, Mr. Shah has emphasized the observations which have been made in the previous proceedings and insisted to the grounds which have been taken and has requested the Court to deal with the contentions and then pass appropriate order and as such, under this circumstance, the Court is constrained to narrate the grounds which have been taken by the petitioners, which are deduced hereunder:-