DEVI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of writ of Mandamus seeking quashing of the letters dtd. 12/6/2020 (Annexure P-32), dtd. 29/1/2022 (Annexure P-37), dtd. 31/1/2022 (Annexure P-38), dtd. 7/3/2022 (Annexure P-43) dtd. 31/3/2022 (Annexure P-48) whereby respondent No.1-Bank has cancelled the sale bid of the petitioner w.e.f. 21/3/2020 and forfeited the amount of Rs.1,07,00,000.00 deposited with the respondent Bank under e-auction, besides seeking other reliefs.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the petitioner, a private limited company is that in pursuance to sale notice dtd. 30/1/2020 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner participated in the auction held on 6/3/2020 and deposited the earnest money and gave the highest bid of Rs.4,25,00,000.00 and was declared highest bidder. Thereafter, on 6/3/2020 at about 1:48 PM, MSTC- ecommerce issued a auto generated e-mail under the heading "Sale Confirmation Letter" communicating to the petitioner that as per the decision of the authorized Officer the bid of petitioner amounting to Rs.4,25,00,000.00 is accepted as highest bid and petitioner is declared as successful bidder. It was mentioned in the e-mail that the same being from the Authorized Officer and being auto generated through computer system, hence needed no signature. It is averred that in this letter the respondent Bank omitted to provide the basic information such as detailed description of the property in question, area of property, name of village, Khasra numbers, title deed etc. rather only property ID was mentioned. The Bank details viz IFSC code, Name of Bank, account Number etc. were also not mentioned. However, through subsequent e-mails the respondent Bank provided/confirmed all these basic details. It is averred that in violation of the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short hereinafter referred to SARFAESI Act) and also Rule 9(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (in short Rules of 2002) this system generated e-mail dtd. 6/3/2020 (Annexure P-3) did not comply with the basic requirements. Despite the respondent Bank not supplying the requisite "sale confirmation letter", the petitioner deposited initial 25% payment before the stipulated date i.e. 7/3/2020 (Annexure P-10). Even though the respondent-Bank failed to fulfill its mandatory statutory obligations by issuing confirmation of sale as per Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002. The petitioner sent repeated e-mails seeking requisite information and requested for extension of time to make balance payment on 18/3/2020 (Annexure P-15) which was also not replied by the Bank. A reply by Bank dtd. 9/3/2020 was received asking the petitioner to deposit the balance amount up to 21/3/2020 i.e within 15 days of the system generated mail communicating the sale confirmation.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondent Bank has filed the response, refuting the allegations levelled in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.