REVACHAND TAKHTANI Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/auction purchaser against the sale notice dtd. 19/4/2024 (Annexure P/1) and auction dtd. 12/7/2023 (auction notice dtd. 26/6/2023) (Annexure P/2). The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that initially respondent No.3 (borrower) availed credit facility from the respondent No.1/bank by way of mortgage of the commercial property situated at Plot No. B-120, IDA Scheme No. 78, Part-I (New Loha Mandi), Indore MP admeasuring an area of 1870.44 sq. ft. Due to default in repayment, the account of the borrower was declared as NPA. Thereafter, respondent No.1/bank published the auction notice dtd. 26/6/2023 for the subject property. Petitioner was declared as the successful bidder of the auction proceedings. As per the conditions of the auction, petitioner deposited a total of Rs.50,00,000.00 for completing the said sale. On 6/11/2023, petitioner submitted an application for mutation before the Indore Development Authority/respondent No.2. In response, IDA/respondent No.2 vide letter dtd. 23/11/2023 informed that the lease was issued in the name of respondent No.3 and a condition was imposed on the original lease to vacate the old business premises and to shift his business to the newly allotted land. Since, the lease condition was not fulfilled, therefore, no permission for sale or transfer of the lease has been granted by the IDA/respondent No.2. Subsequently, petitioner sent a notice to the bank to prove the legal sanctity of the subject property to which the respondent/bank did not reply. Thereafter, the petitioner wrote to the bank demanding the amount deposited by him towards bid as the auction sale could not be honored without the permission of the IDA. However, instead of remitting the said dues, the respondent No.1/bank denied all the averments and alleged that since the petitioner has disobeyed the conditions of the auction, therefore his remittance shall be forfeited. Inspite of various communications by the petitioner, the respondent No.1/bank proceeded to publish second auction notice dtd. 19/4/2024. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bonafide auction purchaser having complied with the terms and condition of the auction. The respondent No.1/bank has not complied with the mandate of Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002 by way of non-disclosure of all factors substantial for the prospective bidder with regard to the subject property. Therefore, the action of the respondent No.1 is illegal reflecting absence of fair play and transparency as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.