Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Pansari vs Dena Bank & Ors on 27 January, 2017
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 757/2017 & CMs 3500-01/2017
MANOJ KUMAR PANSARI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Ravi P. Shukla and
Mr. Dhanjay Singh and
Ms. Upasana Shukla, Advocates
versus
DENA BANK & ORS ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 27.01.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent/Bank, calling upon it to
declare him as the highest bidder in respect of an immovable property
bearing No.D-25, Sector 2, DSIIDC, Bawana Delhi measuring 250 sq.
Meters, that was e-auctioned on 6.9.2016.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2016, the
respondent/Dena Bank had issued a public notice/advertisement proposing
to conduct an e-auction of several properties, including the subject property
in respect whereof, the reserve price was fixed at Rs.1.27 crores. The
petitioner decided to participate in the said e-auction. In accordance with
the terms and conditions laid down in the tender document, the participants
were required to deposit 10% of the reserve price prior to the date of the
auction and the petitioner deposited 10% of the said amount, i.e.,
Rs.12,70,000/- with the respondent/Bank. The date of conducting the
e-auction was fixed as 8.9.2016. The successful bidder was required to
deposit 15% of the bid amount within 15 days from 08.09.2016. In other
words, the petitioner herein, who had offered the highest bid which had been
accepted, was required to deposit a sum of Rs.19,05,000/- with the
respondent/Bank within 15 days reckoned from 8.9.2016, i.e., on or before
24.09.2016. However, he had failed to deposit the sum of Rs.19,05,000/-
with the respondent/Bank within the stipulated timeline.
3. The petitioner claims that he had raised certain queries on the
respondent/Bank, which were pending at their end for a reply and having
failed to receive a satisfactory reply, he did not deposit 15% of the bid
amount though he had got a draft prepared for the said amount from his
bankers. As per the documents on record, the queries raised by the
petitioner were - as to how will the document of title be registered in his
favour and what will be the validity of the sale documents. Under the guise
of asking such irrelevant questions, the petitioner continued to retain 15% of
the bid amount. As a result, the respondent/Bank cancelled his bid and
decided to conduct a fresh auction in respect of the subject property.
4. Vide reply dated 13.12.2016, to the legal notice served by the
petitioner on 8.12.2016 (Annexure A-7), the respondent/Bank clarified that
the amounts, as per the schedule, had not been deposited by the petitioner
though the entire balance amount was required to be deposited by him
within one month reckoned from 8.9.2016, i.e., on or before 7.10.2016.
Noting that he had failed to deposit the said amount in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the tender document, the respondent/Bank stated
that the queries raised by the petitioner was a desperate attempt on his part
to wriggle out of his offer. Consequently, the petitioner's bid was cancelled
and 10% of the bid amount deposited by him was forfeited by the
respondent/Bank.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent/Bank had
taken steps to re-auction the subject property on 14.11.2016, with a reserve
price pegged down to Rs.1.08 crores, but no bidder came forward to offer a
bid whereas the petitioner is still ready and willing to pay the entire balance
amount in terms of the bid offered by him in the earlier e-auction conducted
on 08.09.2016.
6. At the time of participating in the bid, the petitioner was well aware of
the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender document and he was
required to strictly adhere to the same. Raising miscellaneous queries on the
respondent/Bank at a later date cannot be a valid ground to retain the
balance amount which the petitioner was required to deposit within one
month from 08.09.2016, i.e., on or before 7.10.2016.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the present petition as counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to demonstrate any legal or valid ground for interference. At
this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to
withdraw the present petition, while reserving the right of his client to
approach the respondent/Bank directly for relief.
8. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn, along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JANUARY 27, 2017
sk/rkb/ap
