RAJ KUMARI KANOI Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the decision of the respondent-Bank as contained in letter dtd. 17/10/2013, by which the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court dtd. 9/7/2013 in W.P.(C) No. 2304 of 2013, has been rejected denying the refund of an amount to the tune of Rs.4,25,000.00 on the ground that the statutory amount as per the mandate of the provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, hereinafter referred to the Rules, 2002, has not been complied with by the writ petitioner, the auction purchaser.

(2.) The facts leading to this case are that the borrower, namely, M/s Sagar Enterprises has made an application for sanction of loan from the respondent-Bank. The loan has been sanctioned subject to mortgaging the property in the names of Smt. Bindu Devi and Smt. Deepak Devi. The loan account felled under the category of Non-Performing Asset (NPA), therefore, proceeding has been initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002, by taking recourse of recovery of the amount from the borrower by issuing notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act, 2002. The option given to the borrower failed. The aforesaid failure on the part of the borrower prompted the Bank to take the symbolic possession of the property in question by taking recourse of Sec. 13(4) of the Act, 2002. The respondent-Bank has simultaneously, under the provision of Sec. 13(4) of the Act, 2002, came out with the auction notice for sale of the mortgaged property in order to recover the amount to adjust the said loan amount. The writ petitioner has participated in the bid and also been declared as successful.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the physical possession of the property has been directed to be given in favour of the Bank and to that effect, an order has been passed by the District Magistrate as required to be passed under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002. According to the petitioner, this is the reason that the remaining amount as required to be deposited under the provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 has not been deposited.