SYED HIDAYATHULLA Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

(2.) This Court has heard Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned senior counsel for Smt. Manikya Veena and Sri Hari Narayana, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Bank.

(3.) As per Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned senior counsel, pursuant to a sale notice dtd. 7/8/2019; the writ petitioner participated in an auction conducted by the respondent-Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Act (for short SARFAESI Act'). His bid was accepted on 26/8/2019. Thereafter, in terms of the bid etc., 25% of the amount was paid by the writ petitioner amounting to Rs.22.50 lakhs. Since he could not mobilize the rest of the funds due to his health reasons as he was constantly suffering from dengue fever, he sought extension of time. The time for deposit of amount was extended twice from 10/9/2019 to 25/10/2019. The petitioner's ill-health continued. He also submitted a request for furnishing the link documents which were not furnished by the Bank. It is also urged by the learned senior counsel that as per advertisement published, the site measures 302.50 sq. yards, but in reality, it is only 240 sq. yards and the rest is a pathway. It is stated that the site is a 'L' shaped site and these details were not furnished by the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel by relying upon Rule 8(5) and 8(6) and the proviso therein of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short 'the Rules') states that the respondent-Bank had a duty to publish the advertisement clearly and categorically so that the intending buyer would know the site conditions and bid accordingly. He submits that the reason for the delay in deposit is genuine and that as the requisite details of the site were not furnished in the advertisement, the bid submitted by the writ petitioner is not realistic. In addition, he submits that the Bank entered into a One Time Settlement with the original borrower and that they also closed the loan account. Therefore, they did not sustain any loss in the matter as they willingly closed the account. It is submitted that the Rules and in particular, Rule 8(6) of the Rules is flouted along with Rule 9(4) and 9(5) of the Rules. It is argued that the Bank committed a gross error in adjusting the amount deposited even before the last date of payment.