PARAS JAIN Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is at the behest of the successful bidder of two properties (Shop Nos 66 and 67, Modi Arcade, Office No. 226, Jodhpur- hereafter "the property") put to auction by the Indian Overseas Bank (hereafter "IOB" the secured creditor) pursuant to a notice inviting bids published in daily newspapers on 15-05-2011. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition.

(2.) The facts are that IOB had taken over the property, which belongs to the third respondent (hereafter "the borrower") on default in payment of its dues, under provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter "SARFESI Act"). IOB sought to sell the property, and advertised, seeking bids in the 'Dainik Bhaskar' edition dated 15.05.2011. The bids were to be opened on 17.06.2011. The petitioner made a bid of 14.05 lakhs for the property in the auction proceedings held further to the auction notice. Upon being declared the highest bidder, the petitioner/appellant deposited 20% of the bid money with IOB. Later, the appellant wrote a letter dated 19.07.2011 to IOB requesting it to accept the balance amount and confirm the sale. However, IOB replied, apprising the appellant that confirmation of sale was not possible in view of the interim stay dated 16.06.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (DRT) in the securitization application filed by the borrower. The borrower had urged, inter alia that the notice of possession was not published in two newspapers.

(3.) The appellant urged that as he was not a party before the DRT, reply to the securitization application was filed only by IOB. He argued that the IOB assured him that it would watch his interest before the DRT. Aggrieved by the delay in confirmation of sale, the appellant requested IOB to pay interest on the 20% advance bid amount deposited by him and also for issuance of a provisional sale certificate and also sought permission to collect rent from the tenant. IOB, however, did not accede to the appellants' pleas.