SRI LAKSHMI VARA PRASAD SEETHINA Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed, questioning the inaction on the part of respondent nos.2 and 3 in making payment of the amount due in terms of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, [for short, "DRT "] vide S.A.No.165 of 2020, dtd. 13/9/2021, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a Non-Resident Indian got attracted with the paper publication issued by the respondent no.2 vide e-auction sale notice dtd. 25/2/2020 for purchase of e-auction sale of immovable property in two schedules. He participated in the said auction held on 12/3/2020 and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,26,250.00 towards 25% of the sale consideration. The respondent no.2 suppressed the factum of prior litigation concerning the e-schedule property and also non-matching of e-auction of schedule immovable property with the immovable property which exists on ground. A meticulous enquiry into the subject matter revealed the litigation and the impossibility for respondent nos.2 and 3 to return the amount paid by him.

(3.) A counter came to be filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner paid 1/4th of the amount pursuant to the auction and did not pay the balance amount. It is submitted that as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act and also the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice dtd. 21/2/2020, the petitioner has to pay balance of 75% within the statutory time. The petitioner suppressed the fact that he himself made several requests to the bank seeking time for payment of 75%, owing to lock down and did not pay any amount in spite of several extensions given for payment of the amount. He submitted that filing of the present writ petition is only an abuse of process of law, as the respondent has to challenge by way of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta. The counter also referred to Clauses 15 and 19 of the notification dtd. 12/3/2020. It is urged that in view of the above two clauses, the amount paid by the petitioner stands forfeited and he is not entitled for any relief.