JITENDRA N. JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) When Writ Petition No.2975/2019 was considered for admission, the statement made on behalf of the Chairman of the Society that the Society was prepared to hand over vacant possession of 3000 square feet land to the Bank was accepted as an undertaking to the Court. Thereafter this writ petition was directed to be heard along with Writ Petition No.7513/2019. During pendency of the proceedings two intervention applications were filed in Writ Petition No.2975/2019. The Chairman of the Society has subsequently filed Civil Application No.1453/2019 for modification of the order dtd. 29/04/2019 by stating that subject to vacating the premises, the Society be permitted to participate in the auction process. On instructions from the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2975/2019 it is stated that the Society would hand over vacant possession of the premises with it within a period of three weeks from today. Civil Application No.1225/2019 has been preferred by two applicants who claim that they alongwith various other employees have to recover the amounts due to them from the Bank which is under liquidation towards arrears of salary and gratuity. Though this Civil Application was dismissed on 02/07/2021 by granting liberty to the applicants to lodge their claim with the Official Liquidator, MCA Stamp No.9662/2021 has been filed for review of that order. Civil Application No.55/2022 has been preferred by 34 applicants who claim that they have been deprived of their retiral benefits which were due and payable by the Bank to them.

(3.) The principal challenge raised in these writ petitions is that despite the fact that the upset price fixed for the sale of the property in question was indicated to be Rs.15,01,58,000.00, the offer made on behalf of the Housing Society for an amount of Rs.5,51,11,111.00 came to be accepted. Such acceptance was not permissible since the amount offered was much less than the upset price quoted. The upset price had been fixed on the basis of the value of the property in question and therefore the property could not have been permitted to be sold at a price which was lower than its value. The grievance raised is that if the Liquidator intended to accept a bid lower than the upset price quoted in the tender notice, there ought to have been a notice to the public at large to enable the property to be sold at a higher price through competitive bidding.