ERAVANT GANGARAM SADANAND Vs. SURENDRA GOVINDRAO YAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court, in Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2010, on 15th April, 2010, directed the Petitioner to deposit certain amount, which was equivalent to 50% of the outstanding dues, as on 15th April, 2010 with the Respondent Bank within a period of four weeks, failing which it is said that not only the interim protection would stand vacated, but even the Writ Petition would be dismissed for non prosecution. Admittedly, within four weeks, the amount was not deposited. In August, 2010, the Respondent Bank initiated proceeding for sale of the Petitioner's property for recovery of the outstanding dues. In the meantime, the Petitioner moved a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, and on 4th October, 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed it. But it directed that if the Petitioner complied with the impugned order dated 14th April, 2010 within a further period of four weeks from 4th October, 2010, the Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2010 should stand reviewed. The Petitioner communicated this order to the Respondent bank.

(2.) Soon thereafter, the bank proceeded with the proposed auction sale of the Petitioner's property. On 18th October, 2010, the Respondent bank accepted the tender submitted by the highest bidder and published this information in a newspaper. The Petitioner made complaint to the bank saying that their action could amount to Contempt of Court vide their Advocates letter dated 20th October, 2010. To this, bank responded saying that though the tender was accepted, the sale was not completed, and the sale would not be completed if the Petitioner deposited the entire amount due, which was quoted as Rs. 9,10,30,846/-(Rs. Nine Crore ten lacs thirty thousand eight hundred forty six).

(3.) The bank did not proceed further with the auction sale.