VAMPTEX TRADERS Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Tender Notification dated 29. 03. 2005 of the second respondent bank, the petitioner, who is none else than the intending purchaser, has filed this writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent bank has not furnished required details, particularly the statutory dues payable by the third respondent. In the reply to the representation of the petitioner, the second respondent bank has informed the petitioner that the particulars furnished to the petitioner alone are available and they are not in a position to know other details, such as statutory dues, and they also informed the petitioner that if the petitioner is really interested in the property, they are free to contact the third respondent and ascertain those details.

(3.) IN the light of such information by the second respondent bank, I am afraid whether this Court can interfere with at this stage. It is made clear that as informed by the second respondent bank, if the petitioner is interested in securing the property of the third respondent, they are free to ascertain all the details either from the bank or from their debtor, namely, the third respondent.