LAWS(MAD)-2016-10-114

C. KARUNAKARAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK

Decided On October 17, 2016
C. Karunakaran Appellant
V/S
Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner, would aver among other things, that his wife had started the Company along with one Raja in the name and style of M/s.Green Health Agro Oils (P) Ltd and borrowed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.3.25 crores from the second respondent bank and the wife of the petitioner stood as a guarantor and mortgaged the dwelling house in Door No.1, Pandian Nagar, Dindigul. It is further stated by the petitioner that on account of the fact that the business went into bad weather, the Company became sick and the first respondent has invoked the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and issued notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act, followed by a possession notice. The petitioner would further state that the first respondent bank went for E-auction on 05.05.2015 fixing the date of sale on 10.06.2015 and also by fixing the upset price as Rs.1.40 crores and the petitioner, in order to save the property decided to participate in the auction and paid 10% of the earnest money deposit and submitted his bid amount of Rs.1,40,25,000.00 and he was the sole bidder in the auction sale conducted, on 10.06.2015. However, it was not confirmed in his favour. But, to his shock and surprise, for the very same property, fresh sale auction notice was issued on 11.07.2015 by fixing the date of sale, on 19.08.2015 and increased the upset price to Rs.1.55 crores. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs on 16.07.2015 being the additional amount to be paid to meet out the 10% of earnest money deposit to participate in the E-Auction sale scheduled to be held on 19.08.2015. However, it was not conducted by the official respondents on the said date and the auction got postponed on 04.09.2015, without assigning any reason.

(3.) It is the specific stand of the petitioner that the official respondents 1 and 2 in connivance with the borrowers once again went for a fresh auction on 28.09.2015 by fixing the date of sale on 13.11.2015 and also by fixing the upset price of Rs.1.55 crores for the property in question. Challenging the legality of the said proceedings, he came forward to file this Writ Petition.