SRIRAMANENI RAMESH BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari and call for the records connected with the tender cum auction sale dated 16.12.2010 in RP No. 35 of 2010 and set aside the tender cum auction sale of all that Flat No. S-5 bearing Municipal No. 8-3-674/S-5, on II Floor of Sikhara Apartments admeasuring 950 sft, including common area together with proportionate undivided share of land admeasuring 30.76sq.yds., situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad and consequently declare the certificate and registration of sale in favour of the 4th Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and invalid.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner availed loan facility from the Central Bank of India, R.P. Road Branch to a tune of Rs. 11.50 lakhs on 24.4.2004 and the said loan is repayable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Petitioner paid installments till September, 2006 and thereafter, he committed default in repayments. Therefore, the bank, in the process of recovery proceedings, all the notices were issued and the Recovery Officer has conducted the auction, wherein, the auction purchaser was present and participated in the said auction and the said sale was confirmed on 1.3.2011. Thereafter, the Sale Certificate was issued and registered the same.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the banker has an obligation of conducting valuation of the schedule property in consultation with the Petitioner prior to fixing the reserve price and intimate the same to the Petitioner but the same has not been done by the bank due to their high-handed dealing in recovery. It is also submitted that prevailing market value of the schedule property as on 6.2.2010 was Rs. 14,52,000/- and the banker has fixed a reserve price of Rs. 11,00,000/- for the property, which is even not sufficient to cover the loan dues of the Petitioner. Further, it is also submitted that no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the case of Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar, 2006 AIR(SC) 1458