S. SHANMUGANATHAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unreasonable attitude taken by the bank in the matter of a sale of secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, by not putting the auction purchaser in vacant possession of the property or to return the sale consideration paid about nine years back, made the petitioner to file this writ petition claiming return of the amount paid by him with interest at 24% per annum. The bank is resisting the writ petition notwithstanding the fact that encumbrances and pending litigations in respect of the property were not divulged in the auction notification and the purchaser was made to offer his bid on a bona fide belief that the property is free from encumbrances and litigations.

(2.) The petitioner participated in the public auction pursuant to the auction notice issued by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 20.05.2008, in Daily Thanthi newspaper. In the said auction, the writ petitioner was declared as the successful bidder, as per the letter issued by the bank on 21.06.2008. The writ petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 15,50,000.00, being 25% of the bid amount on 21.06.2008 itself. The balance amount of Rs. 46,50,000.00 was deposited by the writ petitioner on 24.07.2008 as per Schedule.

(3.) It is the grievance of the petitioner that at the time of auction and in the public notice, the Bank took a position that the Bank is in possession of the property and assured that physical possession will be delivered to him. Since the physical possession was not given by the Bank, the petitioner requested the Bank to refund the money. Thereafter, a reminder was sent on 21.05.2014. On 03.06.2014, the Bank gave a reply that they would initiate necessary proceedings under SARFAESI Act and deliver vacant possession. The officer-in-charge of t he bank was in regular touch with the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner waited endlessly with a hope that the bank would put him in vacant possession. The petitioner has been requesting the bank time and again either to deliver vacant possession or refund the amount deposited by him. Since nothing was heard from the bank, the writ petitioner by his letter dated 09.04.2015 requested for refund of Rs. 62,00,000.00 with interest, in order to give a quietus to the matter. The respondent, despite receipt of the letter, failed to respond positively, but was trying to convince the writ petitioner that they will take action under SARFAESI Act.