M/S TRIVENI TRADERS, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, MAHENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE BANKE SINGH, RESIDENT OF KAUNDILYA NIWAS, GUJRAT COLONY, P.O. & P.S.CHAS, DISTRICT BOKARO Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of auction-sale dated 30.12.2014, the present writ petition has been filed. A further prayer seeking a direction upon the respondent-Bank to accept Rs. 10 lacs, as ordered by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 26.12.2014 in S.A. No.148 of 2014, has also been made.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner narrated the events which took place after the respondent-Bank illegally issued auction-sale notice dated 27.11.2014 and submits that initially a compromise offer was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 06.05.2014 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner made payment of Rs. 3.00 lacs however, subsequently due to serious ailment, the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount. It is submitted that seeking quashing of auction-sale notice dated 27.11.2014, the petitioner preferred S.A. No.148 of 2014 in which, vide order dated 26.12.2014, the Tribunal stayed the auction-sale notice dated 26.12.2014 on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10 lacs within 15 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure, which is photocopies of demand drafts prepared on 07.01.2015 and 08.01.2015 for Rs. 5 lacs each and submits that though the petitioner approached the respondent-Bank with the demand drafts, the respondent-Bank illegally refused to accept the same and in the meantime, the respondent-Bank proceeded for auction-sale and property of more than Rs. 1.75 crores has been sold for a sum of Rs. 35 lacs. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed application for not to confirm the auction-sale notice dated 30.12.2014 however, the said application has been rejected by the Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 19.01.2015, disbelieving the stand taken by the petitioner and on the ground that the property has already been sold.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that since the auction-sale was conducted on 30.12.2014, the borrower had an opportunity to deposit the entire consideration amount within a period of 30 days, which the borrower has failed to deposit. It is further submitted that order dated 19.01.2015 records the conduct of the borrower, who failed to bring to the notice of the respondent-Bank order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the Tribunal. The borrower also failed to service a copy of the Sarfaesi Appeal upon the respondent-Bank.