CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK Vs. AMITAVA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is at the instance of the bank (respondent in writ petition) challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29th of June, 2022 whereby WPA 12168 of 2021 filed by the respondent herein (writ petitioner) has been allowed.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.1 is the auction purchaser in the e-auction held by the appellant bank on 8th of January, 2021 under the SARFAESI Act. Respondent no. 1 being the successful bidder had deposited Rs.6,27,500.00 being 25% of the bid impugned on the day of auction and sale confirmation letter was issued on 9th of January, 2021 directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the remaining 75% of the balance amount within 15 days. The respondent No.1 thereafter had deposited further amount. According to the petitioner, he had deposited Rs.17,88,500.00 before 25th of January, 2021. On 6th of February, 2021, the bank had issued notice to the respondent No. 1 writ petitioner requesting him to deposit the balance amount of Rs.7,21,500.00 within February 12, 2021. The stand of the petitioner is that on 12th of February, 2021, when he had gone to deposit the balance amount of Rs.7,21,500.00 he was not permitted to do so by the bank authorities on the ground that he had reached the bank after the banking hours. The writ petitioner, therefore, demanding refund of the entire money vide communication dated 24th of February, 2021 which was turned down by the appellant bank by communication dtd. 2/3/2021 stating that since the full amount was not deposited within time, therefore, the sum of Rs.17,88,500.00deposited by the writ petitioner was liable to be forfeited. Hence, in the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed form a direction to quash the communication dated 2nd of March, 2021 and further direction to refund the entire amount.

(3.) Learned Single Judge has taken the view that the bank had acted contrary to Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 by extending the time for deposit of balance amount unilaterally, therefore, the writ petition has been allowed by directing the appellant bank to return the amount of Rs.17,88,500.00.