LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-55

MAHENDRA MAHATO Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

Decided On August 29, 2014
Mahendra Mahato Appellant
V/S
The Central Bank of India Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioners seek orders on the Central Bank of India (the first respondent) and four of its officers, who are the other respondents, to discharge their obligation in terms of the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the SARFAESI Act) of handing over possession of a secured asset to the petitioners which had been put up for sale by auction and has since been purchased by them.

(2.) The basic facts giving rise to the writ petition are not in dispute. The third respondent, being the authorized officer of the first respondent, had published an auction notice dated April 12, 2012 in exercise of power conferred by Rules 8(6) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 (hereafter the 2002 Rules) putting up various properties (secured assets) for sale. Such properties, inter alia, included a 3-storied residential cum commercial building known as Medilife, located in Ward No. 6 of Siliguri Municipal Corporation, P.O. and P.S. Siliguri, District Darjeeling together with such area of vacant land as delineated in the notice. The petitioners were the successful bidders and in due course of time the requisite amount having been made over to the third respondent, sale certificate in the statutory form (Appendix V) read with Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules was issued. The material portion of the sale certificate reads as follows:

(3.) Upon being furnished the sale certificate, the petitioners vide letter dated December 17, 2012 requested the respondents to provide peaceful and vacant possession of the secured asset. Since no positive result yielded, a lawyer's notice dated April 27, 2013 was sent containing similar prayer. This request too proved abortive. Finding no other option, this writ petition dated December 23, 2013 was presented before the Court seeking, inter alia, order on the respondents to immediately and forthwith deliver peaceful and vacant physical possession of the secured asset in favour of the petitioners.