ABDUL ROUFF Vs. UCO BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four writ petitions involving similar issues are taken up for consideration analogously.

(2.) In all the four matters, the writ petitioner having participated in an auction conducted by a secured creditor under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) wants the refund of the purchase price.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, The petitioner filed four several writ petitions being WP No. 9714(W) of 2016, WP No.9716(W) of 2016, WP No. 10166(W) of 2016 and WP No. 10168(W) of 2016 (Abdul Rouff v. UCO Bank & Ors.). The bank had assured the petitioner that the bank would refund the entire purchase price if the possession of the immovable property was not made over within three months by a writing dated June 27, 2016. The bank did not do so. Such writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated July 1, 2016 recording the assurance given by the Zonal Manager as reflected in the letter dated June 27, 2016 and expressing the hope and trust that, the Zonal Manager would act in terms of the assurance given in such letter. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, a period in excess of one year has lapsed from the date of the order being July 1, 2016. The petitioner is yet to receiver either the immovable property concerned or the refund of the purchase price. He submits that, the bank should be directed to refund the purchase price along with interest at the commercial rate.