GOLDIE SUD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these proceedings, the Petitioner seeks to impugn the legality of the public auction that was conducted on 15 September 2010 by the First Respondent of land and building situated on Plot No. 494, Linking Road, Bandra, Mumbai 400 050. The Petitioner is a coowner and was comortgagor. At the outset, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated before the Court that in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns the validity of the auction sale purely in his capacity as a bidder at the auction.

(2.) On 21 May 2010, the First Respondent invited bids for a public auction of the immovable property in question. The notice inviting the tenders specifically stipulated that the reserve price was 14.62 crores, below which "the property will not be sold". The Petitioner submitted a bid at the auction which was held on 28 May 2010 in the amount of Rs. 15.05 crores. The Petitioner, however, failed to comply with his obligation of paying the balance of the sale consideration over and above Rs. 3,76,25,000/, upon which the auction sale was cancelled and the property was readvertised.While issuing an advertisement for the public auction, the First Respondent once again stipulated a reserve price of Rs. 14.62 crores below which, it was stated, the property would not be sold. At the second auction which was held on 15 September 2010, the Petitioner submitted a bid of Rs. 5 crores, which was well below the reserve price of Rs. 14.62 crores and below Rs. 15.05 crores which was submitted at the first auction. Four bids were received by the bank. The highest bid was of Rs. 14.77 crores of the Third Respondent whereas, the second highest bid was of Rs. 14.63 crores. The minutes of the meeting that was held on 15 September 2010, record that on scrutiny, it was found that only two of the four bidders submitted bids in excess of the reserve price together with the earnest money of 10% of the reserve price, as required. The bid submitted by the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that

(3.) On behalf of Petitioner, four submissions have been urged before the Court