KOMATI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order, dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in Securitization Application (S.A.) No.21 of 2018. Since the loan transaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 was declared as non-performing asset (NPA), respondent No.1/bank authorities being secured creditor, pressed into service the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'). Initially on 09.12.2017, respondent No.1/bank issued a mega e-auction sale notice, proposing public auction on 28.12.2017 in respect of four items. Pursuant to the above sale notice, dated 09.12.2017, auction conducted in respect of item No.1 was finalized and in the said auction, the petitioner herein emerged as the highest bidder in respect of item No.1, which is vacant land admeasuring 489 square yards in plot Nos.79 and 80 in LP No.04/2004 in S.No.57/P in Sivajinagar, Tirumala Nagar, Vadlapudi, Visakhapatnam, for a sum of Rs.66,02,000/-. It is not in dispute that as mandated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Rules, 2002, the petitioner herein paid 1/4th of the bid amount on 28.12.2017 and the balance of 3/4th amount was also paid on 11.01.2018. Respondent No.1/bank authorities, however, did not issue sale certificate.

(2.) As the auction in respect of item Nos.2 to 4 of sale notice, dated 09.12.2017, did not materialize, respondent No.1/bank issued another sale notice on 08.01.2018, fixing the date of auction as 25.01.2018. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein filed S.A.No.21 of 2018 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, showing as many as seven items as schedule properties while seeking the following relief:

(3.) The Debts Recovery Tribunal, passed an order, dated 25.01.2018 and the operative portion of the said order at para No.6 reads thus: