PANDIYAS Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners prayed for a declaration that the sale certificate is null and void and to restore the properties of the Petitioners to them.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for deciding the issue are as follows:

(3.) Mr. K.M. Vijay an, learned Senior Counsel for the writ Petitioners submitted that the sale conducted by the first Respondent bank was not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the bank has also not followed the provisions of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the sale is void and Respondents 2 and 3 will not get any right under the sale. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that during the tendency of the writ, on 20.3.2007, the Petitioners offered to payRs.1,41,00,000/= to Respondents 2 and 3 and that was also accepted by the first Respondent as well as Respondents 2and 3 and when the matter was posted on 24.3.2007, the Petitioners produced the Demand Draft for Rs. 1,41,00,000/=and at that time, the counsel for the Respondents refused to accept the Demand Draft and by their own conduct, Respondents 2 and 3 are stopped from going back on their words and they are bound to accept the Demand Draft forRs.1,41,00,000/= as agreed by them and release the properties and therefore on that account, the sale in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in K. Raamaselvam v. Indian Overseas bank, 2009 5 CTC 385 and submitted that when the sale was in contravention of Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, the sale is liable to beset aside and also relied upon the judgments reported in Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank Of India, 2004 1 SCC 605, B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, 2003 2 SCC 355 and Chhaganbhai Norsinbhai v. Soni Chandubhai Gordhanbhai, 1976 2 SCC 951 for the proposition that Respondents 2and 3 are bound by the undertaking given before this Court to accept the sum of Rs. 1,41,00,000/= and they are stopped from going back from their words.