BINATI SAMAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the auction sale notice issued by the Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, vide Annexure-5, and acceptance of bid of the auction holders, vide Annexure-6, the petitioner has filed the aforementioned writ application. An ancillary prayer has been made for interim protection of the suit property purchased by the petitioner till inter se dispute between the parties is resolved in C.S No.306 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she is neither the borrower nor guarantor. She is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property. The suit property is a residential building. Prior to her purchase, the same was mortgaged with the State Co-operative Bank on 6.5.2003. On negotiation, she paid the entire outstanding dues of the borrower to the Bank, whereafter the property was released and sold to her, vide Annexure-1. While the matter stood thus, the State Bank of India-the opposite party No.3, published a possession notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "the SARFAESI Act") in the daily newspaper "The Sambad" on 24.2.2010, which shows that the property had been mortgaged to the said Bank. On 19.5.2010, the Bank of Baroda, opposite party No.l, published possession notice in respect of the said property. On 28.5.2010, opposite party No.l also published the sale notice in the daily Newspaper "The Indian Express". The property was put to auction by opposite party No.l on 26.6.2010. The auction purchaser had deposited the EMD of Rs.60,000/- out of reserve price of Rs.12,00,000/-. The further case of the petitioner is that opposite party No.3 filed the suit against opposite party No.2 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul, which is registered as Civil Suit No.306 of 2010 for injunction. The petitioner has also filed C.S. No.305 of 2010 in the same court for permanent injunction against both the Banks.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the writ application, a stand has been taken that it is the duty of the petitioner to enquire into the status of the land in question before purchasing the same. Furthermore, the trial court has dismissed the interim application filed by the petitioner for injunction.