G.YADAIAH Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition challenges the validity of the tender -cum -auction sale notice, dated 10 -02 -2016 published by the Authorized Officer of the 1st respondent State Bank of Hyderabad proposing to conduct the sale on 14 -03 -2016 from 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has availed certain financial assistance from the respondent State Bank of Hyderabad and he committed default in repaying the loan amount. Therefore, the loan account has been declared as a 'non -performing asset' by the bank and measures provided for under sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), for securitization of the loan account, have been undertaken by it. When the demand notice issued under sub -section (2) of Section 13 providing sixty days' time to liquidate the liability did not evoke any response from him, the follow -up action contemplated under sub -section (4) of Section 13 has been initiated by putting to sale the secured asset. E -auction sale notice was published by the 1st respondent on 10.02.2016 in the New India Express. The last date for submission of request letter for participation and furnishing the relevant documents and proof of EMD was put as 11 -03 -2016 05.00 P.M. The minimum reserve price fixed was Rs.28.10 lacs. At that stage, the petitioner herein seems to have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad by instituting S.A.No. 79 of 2016 on or around 07 -03 -2016. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, entertaining the same on 11 -03 -2016, passed an order while holding that no ground is made out to interfere with the action of the respondent bank, but however, liberty was granted for participation in the auction process. The respondent bank and the service provider were directed to make necessary arrangement, so that the applicant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal participates in the bidding process without any pre -deposit so as to enable the applicant to take the property at the highest price and only in the event the applicant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal emerges as the highest bidder, but fails to deposit the amount, then the second highest bidder would get the opportunity to purchase the secured asset put to sale. The matter was again fixed to 16 -05 -2016 for further hearing.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner before us that in spite of his approaching the respondent bank and then offering to participate in the e -auction sale slated for 14 -03 -2016, the respondent bank has not generated the necessary password and consequently, the petitioner could not participate in the said auction sale. Hence, the present Writ Petition is instituted.