Delhi High Court
Mr Anckur V Mittal vs Bank Of Baroda General Manager ... on 7 January, 2025
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th January, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 28/2025 & CM APPL. 68/2025
MR ANCKUR V MITTAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar with Mr.
Abhimanyu Singh and Mr. Neeraj
Maurya, Advocates.
versus
BANK OF BARODA GENERAL MANAGER (PRINCIPAL
NODAL OFFICER) & ANR.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC with Ms.
D. Veragi, Mr. B N Mishra,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Respondent Bank had initiated auction/sale proceedings under
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
2. The property in question was a residential property situated at Khasra
No. 652, Khata No. 147, VII Kheda Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, Dist. Gautam
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
3. The petitioner participated in the above said e-auction and was found to
be the highest bidder.
4. As per the terms of the bid document, the petitioner deposited 25% of
the bid amount on 28.06.2023. Such amount was of Rs. 44,25,000/-
5. Petitioner was also required to deposit the balance amount in a
time-bound manner.
6. Fact remains that he could not do so and sent request to the bank to
extend the time.
7. Admittedly such time, on the basis of the request made by the petitioner
himself, was extended upto 20.09.2023. Fact remains, since the balance
amount was not paid despite extension, the above amount of Rs. 44,25,000/-
was forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the auction/sale proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlights that there is a subsequent
huge development in the matter as the bank has entered into one time
settlement (OTS) with the concerned borrower and pursuant to such
settlement, the concerned borrower has paid all the outstanding dues to the
satisfaction of the respondent bank and respondent bank has also released and
discharged the above said mortgaged property to the concerned borrower.
9. It is submitted that thus the petitioner has not incurred any loss in the
entire process.
10. It is also submitted that the petitioner, earlier, could not make the
balance payment due to sudden closure of his business but contending that
since there is neither any loss nor any prejudice to the respondent bank, it is
prayed that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the respondent be asked to
refund the above said forfeited amount.
11. In this regard, the petitioner also strongly relies upon Alisha Khan vs
Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) & Ors [SLP (C) Nos. 15959-15960/2021 date
of judgment-13.12.2021].
12. Learned counsel for respondent appears on advance notice.
13. After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner
submits that at the moment, the petitioner would be satisfied if the
respondents are directed to consider the contentions made in the writ petition
as representation and to decide the same in a time-bound manner.
14. He also seeks liberty to knock the doors of the Court again in case, the
outcome remains no different.
15. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection to the above said
proposal. He, however, submits that the forfeiture was, otherwise, justified.
16. Be that as it may, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for
petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent
bank to consider the contentions made in the present writ petition as a
representation and to decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period
of six weeks.
17. Liberty, as prayed, is also granted to the petitioner.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 7, 2025/sw
