Kerala High Court
Vivek Sukumar vs Panjab National Bank on 31 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16360 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VIVEK SUKUMAR,
AGED 36 YEARS,
LAKSHMIPRIYA HOUSE,
PUTHIYAVILA P.O.,
KAYAMKUALM,
ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690531
BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 PANJAB NATIONAL BANK,
CIRCLE SASTRA CENTER,
VYSHANAVI TOWERS, BYPASS ROAD,
KUMARICHANTHA, AMBALATHARA P.O,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM ,
REPRESTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER &
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 695026
2 THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
CIRCLE SASTRA CENTER,
VYSHANAVI TOWERS, BYPASS ROAD,
KUMARICHANTHA, AMBALATHARA P.O,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
BY ADV. SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.16360/2024
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.16360 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Petitioner, who is an e-auction purchaser in a sale
conducted by the 1st respondent-Bank pursuant to
proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, has approached this Court seeking to direct the
respondents to consider Ext.P4 representation and extend the
time granted for payment of balance sale consideration as per
Ext.P3 till the disposal of Ext.P2 declaration suit.
2. The petitioner states that he is the purchaser of
18.50 Cents of land in re-survey No.43/2 and 32 Cents of land
in re-survey No.43/3 of Kayamkulam Village, Karthikappally
Taluk in Alappuzha District. The auction was conducted
invoking Rule 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner deposited 10% of
the reserve price as EMD and participated in the auction. The
petitioner's bid for ₹1,07,87,000/- was the only bid and the
sale was confirmed in the name of the petitioner. The bid was
held on 30.01.2024. The sale was confirmed and the
petitioner deposited ₹26,96,750/-, thus paying 25% of the sale
price.
3. After the bid, when the respondent-Bank conducted
measurement of the property, it was found that certain
neighbouring property owners had encroached into the
property. The 1st respondent-Bank hence filed OS
No.107/2024 in the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam against the
encroachers.
4. On 12.02.2024, the Bank required the petitioner to
pay the remaining 75% of the bid amount to the tune of
₹80,90,250/- on or before 30.04.2024. The petitioner states
that there is no guarantee that once the petitioner pays the
balance amount unencumbered possession of the property
can be given to the petitioner. The petitioner as per Ext.P4
requested the Bank to grant him time for payment of balance
consideration till the property becomes deliverable. The
petitioner therefore seeks to direct the respondents to
consider Ext.P4 representation and extend the time granted
for payment till disposal of the Original Suit.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank.
6. The sale of 18.50 and 32 Cents of land was
conducted on 30.01.2024 in an e-auction. In the bid held on
30.01.2024, the petitioner was the successful bidder for a
purchase price of ₹1,07,87,000/-. The sale was confirmed in
the petitioner's name. The petitioner paid 25% of the sale
price by 31.01.2024. Ext.P1 is the sale confirmation letter.
7. As there were some encroachments in the property,
the Bank filed OS No.107/2024 in the Munsiff's Court,
Kayamkulam. The Bank, however, demanded that the
petitioner should pay the balance 75% sale consideration on
or before 30.01.2024. The argument of the petitioner is that
the time for payment of balance sale consideration should be
extended till the declaratory suit is decreed in favour of the
Bank.
8. The petitioner, before participating the bid, ought to
have satisfied as to the extent of property bid, the boundaries
thereof and any possible civil claim over the property following
the principles of Buyer Beware. The Bank, when came to
know of encroachment, has immediately moved the civil court
filing OS No.107/2024 against the encroachers. The fact that
the Bank has filed civil suit against a third party, cannot be a
reason for the petitioner not to pay balance sale consideration
in time. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he will
pay the balance consideration only as and when the civil court
passes decree in favour of the Bank.
In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any
merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The writ petition is
therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/30.05.2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16360/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CONFIRMATION
LETTER DATED 01.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK.
OF 2024 OF THE KAYAMKULAM MUNSIFF
COURT
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 12-02-2024
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.04.2024
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit-R1(a) True copy of the judgment dated
18/03/24 in W.P.(C) 8712 of 2024
Exhibit-R1(b) True copy of the letter dated 22/04/24
issued by respondents to petitioner
