RAJA PARIKSHIT Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 to 6 (for short 'the borrower') filed a writ petition before this court challenging the auction sale dated 11. 11. 2006 in favour of the present appellant (for short 'auction purchaser') made by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (for short 'the bank' ). The auction sale was challenged on various grounds, inter alia that it was in contravention of the interim order dated 11. 9. 2006 passed by this Court. The Single Judge was persuaded by the submission and held that the auction sale was bad in law.

(3.) TWO relevant facts may be noticed here immediately: (i) that subsequent to the filing of the present appeal, the auction purchaser has withdrawn the purchase price from the bank and (ii) that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 7. 5. 2008, a sum of Rupees thirteen lacs has been deposited by the borrower with the bank. One more fact that is important to be noticed here is that pursuant to the order dated 11. 9. 2006 passed by this Court in earlier writ application, the borrower has approached the appellate authority challenging the notice dated 30. 8. 2006 demanding a sum of Rs. 13,82,511 under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder. That the said appeal is pending before the appellate authority is not disputed by any of the parties. In the backdrop of these facts, the question that needs to be considered by us is whether an interference is called for in the impugned order and any indulgence is required to be shown by us in the matter.