*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY
AND
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
+ WRIT PETITION NO.2990 OF 2020
% 29-01-2021
# Rayalapuram Raja Reddy, S/o R. Narsimha Reddy, aged about
59 years, Occ: Business R/o 103/2, Meenakshi Estates,
Jeedimetla Suchitra Junction, Qutubullapur Medchal, Malkajgiri
District.
........ Petitioner
and
$ State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch II,
Hyderabad 1st Floor, TSRTC Kachiguda Amenity centre,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad 500 027.
...... Respondent.
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for Petitioner: Sri M. Vijaya Kumar Goud
^Counsel for Respondent: Pearl Law Associates
? Cases referred
1) 2019 (5) ALD 218
2) 2018 (3) ALD 266 2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.2990 of 2020
ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed with the following prayer:
"This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 11.03.2019 in forfeiting the amount received from the petitioner by not finalizing the e-auction dated 17.08.2018 having received a sum of Rs.63,00,000/ by not receiving the balance amount of Rs.47,00,000/ out of total bid amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/ and issuing the Sale Certificate for the property being non-agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts in Sy.No.124 situated at Athvelly Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and alternatively direct the respondent to pay the amount deposited by the petitioner with interest on Rs.63,00,000/ (Sixty Three Lakhs Only)."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - bank. Perused the record.
3. The fulcrum of the petitioner's case is that, the petitioner had taken
part in the e-auction conducted by the respondent bank on 17.08.2018, in
respect of non-agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.11 gts in Sy.No.124,
situated at Athvelly Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Ranga
Reddy District, and was declared as a successful bidder. Though, the
petitioner had made substantial payment towards the bid amount, and is
willing to perform his part of obligation by making balance payment, the
respondent bank is not willing to accept the same and execute the sale
certificate in his favour. On the contrary the respondent bank is now
seeking to forfeit the amounts remitted by the petitioner, under the
pretext of not making the balance payment.
3
4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the respondent
bank had brought to auction the subject property mortgaged in its favour
for extending financial facilities to one M/s. B.S. Ltd., and the borrower
having committed default in repayment of the financial facilities extended
to it. It is the case of the petitioner that in the e-auction held on
17.08.2018, though the reserve price of the subject property was fixed at
Rs. 26,00,000/-, the petitioner bid for the same in a sum of
Rs.1,10,00,000/- was the highest and was thus declared as successful
bidder. It is also submitted that, in order to participate in the said e-
auction, the petitioner had initially on 14.08.2018 paid an amount of
Rs.2,60,000/- being 10% of the reserve price as earnest money deposit
(EMD). As the petitioner became the successful bidder in respect of the
above property, the petitioner made further payment of Rs. 24,90,000/-
on the following day viz., 18.08.2018, in all totaling to Rs. 27,50,000/-
being the 25% of the bid amount as per the terms and conditions and in
compliance of Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002 (in short "Enforcement Rules"). The main grievance of the petitioner
is that though the petitioner paid 25% of the bid amount and is ready and
willing to perform his part of the obligation, the respondent bank is not
ready to issue sale certificate and deliver physical possession of the
subject property by accepting the remaining 75% of the bid amount.
5. It is also submitted further remittances of Rs.15,50,000/- on
24.09.2018 and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 18.01.2019 by way of RTGS
and under a cheque, respectively were made by the petitioner towards
the bid amount. Thus, it is claimed that, in all, the petitioner paid a sum of
Rs.63,00,000/-in respect of the e-auction conducted and the respondent
bank is only required to receive the balance sum of Rs.47,00,000/-, only,
from out of the bid amount of the petitioner. Learned counsel would 4
further submit that though the petitioner is willing to remit the balance
amount of Rs.47,00,000/- to the respondent bank in respect of the
auction of the scheduled property, even today, the respondent bank is not
willing to come forward to accept the said payment by confirming the sale
and issuing a sale certificate and delivering possession of the schedule
property to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the
petitioner intended to cause inspection of the subject property as detailed
in the e-auction notice, there were encumbrances on the said property
and the same was not physically available with the respondent bank for
being put to auction. It is further submitted that if the respondent bank
delivers physical possession of the property to the petitioner, the
petitioner is willing to perform his part of obligation as per the terms and
conditions of the e-auction notice. Learned counsel would thus, submit
that as the respondent bank had failed disclose the encumbrance in the e-
auction notice, the respondent bank cannot seek to forfeit the amount
deposited by the petitioner towards the bid amount.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank has
vehemently opposed the above said submission. Learned counsel for the
respondent bank would submit that the present writ petition has been
filed nearly after lapse of one year, after issuance of notice dated
11.03.2019 forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner, due to
failure on the part of the petitioner in making the payment of the balance
amount within the time specified in the Sale Confirmation Advice dated
18.08.2018 and the action of petitioner in not remitting the balance
amount within the time prescribed, also not being in consonance with the
provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 5
Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act' ) and the
Enforcement Rules. Learned counsel for respondent bank would further
submit that the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this Court seeking to question the notice issued by the
respondent bank on 11.03.2019 by filing the present writ petition in
February, 2020, is only a chance litigation. Learned counsel for the
respondent bank would also submit that even otherwise the petitioner is
not entitled for being granted any relief by this Court inasmuch as the
petitioner had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of e-auction
held on 17.08.2018. Learned Counsel would further contend that in so
far as the claim of the petitioner of existence of encumbrance over the
property and the same being not disclosed in the e-auction notice, no
such plea is taken by the petitioner in the affidavit filed into this court and
is an after thought to cause prejudice against the respondent bank.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent bank would submit that the
petitioner, having taken part in the e-auction held on 17.08.2018 in
respect of the subject property, had made a bid for the same in a sum of
Rs.1,10,00,000/- and had remitted 25% of the Earnest Money Deposit
amount, including the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- paid on 14.08.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondent bank would further submit that, upon
receiving 25% of the bid amount, the respondent bank had issued Sale
Confirmation Advice dated 18.08.2018, directing the petitioner to make
the balance payment of Rs.82,50,00,000/- within 15 days, i.e. on or
before 01.09.2018, to enable the respondent bank to transfer the subject
property in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that going by the
admission of the petitioner himself, the balance payment was not made
on or before 01.09.2018.
6
9. Learned counsel would further submit that, having regard to the
terms and conditions of sale, scheme of the Act and the Rules made
thereunder, and in particular, Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules,
requires the auction purchaser to make the balance payment within 15
days from the date of issue of Sale Confirmation Advice. However, the
said period of 15 days for making the balance payment can be extended
up to three months under a written agreement entered into between the
purchaser and the secured creditor. It is also submitted that the
respondent bank by issuing Sale Confirmation Advice dated 18.08.2018,
acknowledging the receipt of 25% of the bid amount, directed the
petitioner to make the balance payment of 75% of the bid amount in a
sum of Rs. 82,50,000/- on or before 01.09.2018. It is further contended
that the petitioner, being in receipt of the said communication, neither
made the balance payment of Rs.82,50,000/-, on or before the said date,
nor approached the respondent bank seeking for any extension, or there
has been any agreement in writing for extending the period for making
the balance payment.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent bank would also submit that,
the petitioner having failed to make the balance payment and also having
failed to approach the respondent authorities in time seeking extension of
time, as stipulated under Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules, by his own
actions had caused the amount of 25% deposited, liable for forfeiture by
02.09.2018. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner,
realizing the fact of default committed by him in making the balance
payment within time, had made a further payment of Rs.15,50,000/- on
24.09.2018 by transferring the said amount through RTGS to Earnest
Money Deposit General Pool Account of the respondent bank on his own
accord. The said General Pool Account maintained by the respondent bank 7
is no lien account, and as such, the proceeds transferred by the petitioner
into the said account are not earmarked for any specific property in
respect of which e-auction had been held. Learned counsel would further
submit that the petitioner, after five months of the date of auction, had
made a further transfer of Rs.20,00,000/- by cheque into no lien Earnest
Money Deposit General Pool Account on his own accord, which also
cannot be taken as due payments in respect of e-auction held on
17.08.2018.
11. Learned counsel would submit that, having regard to the statutory
frame work, the respondent bank cannot extend the period for making the
balance payment by a purchaser beyond a period exceeding three
months, as per Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules, with effect from
04.11.2016. Learned counsel for the respondent bank would also submit
that the remittance of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the petitioner after a
period of five months of the e-auction will be in clear contradiction of Rule
9(4) of the Enforcement Rules, and thus, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to take advantage of the same, much less, in the absence of
any agreement in writing to the above effect being entered into between
the petitioner and the respondent bank as purchaser and secured creditor.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent bank in support of the above
said contention placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
MOHD.ABDUL RAZAK V/s. STATE BANK OF INDIA1.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent bank would further contend
that the claim of the petitioner, that the respondent bank had failed to
deliver unencumbered property to the petitioner is also without basis, as
the petitioner never approached the respondent bank at any time before
1 2019 (5) ALD 218 8
filing of the present writ petition with regard to the alleged claim being
made and no material whatsoever has been placed before this Court to
substantiate the above said submission. Learned counsel for the
respondent bank would also submit that though the petitioner claims to
have approached the revenue authorities seeking for identification of the
property and also having got it privately surveyed, no proof of payment of
the petitioner making application through mee-seva has been filed into
this Court nor the alleged private surveyor report has ever been given to
the bank nor filed before this court and as such, the claim being made by
the petitioner of having approaching the revenue authorities for
identifying the boundaries of the said property sold by the respondent
bank is uncorroborated and is only a self-serving statement.
14. Learned counsel would submit that the property that has been sold
by the respondent bank is a clearly identified property having specific
boundaries on all the sides, and as such, the question that the respondent
bank had failed to deliver unencumbered property to the petitioner, would
not arise. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent bank failing
to deliver unencumbered property to the petitioner would arise, if only the
petitioner had made the entire payment of the bid amount of
Rs.1,10,00,000/- before the due date, and having failed to do so, the
petitioner has invented the said plea only to ensure that the amount
deposited by the petitioner is not forfeited. Learned counsel for the
respondent bank would further submit that even before the e-auction is
held on 17.08.2018, the details of the property were disclosed and the
intending participants, like the petitioner, ought to have caused
verification by themselves, since the property put up for auction is on 'as
is where is basis', and as a matter of fact the petitioner had himself 9
obtained encumbrance certificate on 14.08.2018 as per the documents
filed by himself.
15. Learned counsel would also submit that it is for the petitioner to
cause due diligence before taking part in the auction and cannot now turn
back and claim that the respondent bank has failed to deliver
unencumbered property, which, in any situation, has not arisen in the
present facts of the case, as the petitioner has failed to make the
remittance of the balance bid amount before the due date specified,
thereby making the payment of 25% of the bid amount liable for
forfeiture under the Enforcement Rules. Learned counsel for the
respondent bank would however fairly submit that since, the petitioner
had remitted further amounts into the no lien account, the respondent
bank would refund the same to the petitioner without forfeiting the same.
16. Having regard to the submissions made as above, the issues that
fall for consideration of this Court are under:
(i) Whether the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of e-auction held on 17.08.2018;
(ii) Whether the adhoc payments made by the petitioner beyond the time specified in sale confirmation advice can be considered as valid payment and is in accordance with Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules ; and
(iii) Whether the action of respondent bank in forfeiting the payment made by the petitioner due to failure to make the balance payment within the period stipulated is valid ?
17. In order to appreciate the contentions urged, it is necessary to
make a reference to the scheme of the Act and Rules framed thereunder,
with particular reference to Rule 9 of the Enforcement Rules dealing with
the time of sale, delivery of possession etc. The relevant sub-rules in Rule 10
9 as applicable to the facts of the present case are Rule 9(3), 9(4), 9(5)
and 9(6) of the Enforcement Rules, which read as under:
'Rule 9 - Time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.-
(1) .....
(2) .....
(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again;]
(4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months].
(5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.
(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these rules.
18. A reading of Rule 9(3) of the Enforcement Rules as above,
indicates that upon sale of the immovable property, the auction
purchaser is required to deposit 25% of the amount of sale price,
inclusive of Earnest Money Deposit with the authorized officer on the
same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be and 11
upon failure to do so, the property is to be sold again. Sub-rule (4)
thereof specifies that upon making the payment specified in Sub-rule
(3), the balance amount of purchase price shall be paid by the
purchaser to the authorized officer on or before expiry of the fifteenth
day of confirmation of sale of immovable property, or such extended
period, as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties, but, in
any case, not exceeding three (3) months. Thus, the outer period
which the secured creditor upon putting the property to auction can
grant to auction purchaser is only of three (3) months. Thus, the
Enforcement Rules contemplate that even by agreement in writing
between the purchaser and the secured creditor, the period for making
the balance payment cannot be extended beyond the period of three
(3) months. The said amendment to the provision prescribing the time
frame under sub-rule (3) and (4) with an outer limit of three (3)
months for making payment under Sub-rule (4) has been brought into
force to the statue by way of Notification No.1046(E), dated
03.11.2016, with effect from 04.11.2016.
19. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the Enforcement Rules specifies that in
the event of the purchaser failing to make the payment either under Sub-
rule(4), the property shall be re-sold and the purchaser, who has failed to
make the balance payment as per the bid auction held, shall forfeit all
claims to the property or to any part of the sum which he has paid for
taking part in the auction earlier. Sub-rule (6) thereof specifies that the
secured creditor, i.e., the bank, upon the purchaser complying with the
terms of payment, shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable
property as per the form given in Appendix V, the sale certificate, which
specifies the following:
12
1) the name of the secured creditor/institution selling the property;
2) name of the purchaser of the immovable property;
3) name of the borrower who mortgaged the property in favour
of the secured creditor;
4) the receipt of the sale price in the auction in full;
5) delivery and possession of the schedule property being
handed over to the purchaser free from all encumbrances and with the boundaries being specified and also noting encumbrances, if any.
20. In the facts of the present case, as noted hereinabove, the
petitioner took part in e-auction held on 17.08.2018 and offered the bid
amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- for the subject property. Out of the total
amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-, the petitioner had deposited Rs.27,50,000/-,
which is equivalent to 25% of the bid amount for the property within the
time stipulated under Rule 9(3) of the Enforcement Rules. Upon such
deposit of 25% of the amount, the respondent bank has issued Sale
Confirmation Advice dated 18.08.2018 to the petitioner directing the
petitioner to make the balance payment of Rs.82,50,000/- within 15 days
as stipulated in Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules. Thus, the petitioner is
required to make the balance payment on or before 01.09.2018 to enable
the respondent bank to proceed further by issuing confirmation of sale by
registering sale certificate in favour of the purchaser as per the form given
in Appendix V by detailing the boundaries and also encumbrances, if any.
21. However, it is to be seen that as the petitioner failed to make the
balance payment of Rs.82,50,000/- before the due date as specified in the
Sale Confirmation Advice dated 18.08.2018, the respondent bank could
not have proceeded with the steps prescribed under Rule 9(6) of the
Enforcement Rules. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner did not 13
approach the respondent bank and obtain extension of time for making
the payment as stipulated under Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules,
which in any case, cannot be extended beyond a period of three months
from the date of auction, which even if extended would only be up to
16.11.2018, before which time, the petitioner ought to have made the
remittance of balance payment of the bid amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- I.e.
in a sum of Rs.82,50,00,000/-. Though it is claimed that the petitioner had
made a further remittance of Rs.15,50,00,000/- on 24.09.2018 that would
not by any stretch of imagination extend the period any further for
making the balance payment. Thus, even assuming that by implied act of
receiving the above said payment, on 24.09.2018, the respondent bank
had agreed to receive the consideration in respect of the e-auction held
on 17.08.2018, beyond the period of 15 days, the petitioner is still
required to remit the balance amount of Rs.57,00,000/- on or before
16.11.2018. Admittedly, no further payment had been made by the
petitioner before expiry of the three months period, specified under Rule
9(4) of the Enforcement Rules. As a result of failure on the part of the
petitioner in making the payment, the petitioner cannot claim any
privilege being accrued to him under the Rules.
22. Further, it is to be seen that though the petitioner claims to have
raised objection regarding the extent of encumbrance over the property
sold by the respondent bank in the auction held on 17.08.2018, orally, it is
un comprehendible that, while, on one hand, the petitioner claims to have
raised objection regarding the encumbrance of property, which has not
been disclosed by the respondent bank while conducting auction, on the
other hand, the petitioner was making further remittances on 24.09.2018
and again after a lapse of three months on 18.01.2019, without having a
resolution to the said issue alleged to have been raised orally. The 14
petitioner would otherwise be entitled to raise the issue of encumbrance
and claim equities and right to question the inaction on the part of the
respondent bank in delivering possession by registering the sale certificate
in favour of the petitioner, if only the petitioner had made the full
remittance of the amount as per the auction held before the due date
specified in sale confirmation advice. As the petitioner had failed to make
the payment beyond 25% of the bid amount within a period of 15 days
stipulated under Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules and in the absence of
any agreement in writing extending such period up to a period of three
months, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent bank had
accepted further payments into their account, cannot be accepted as a
valid submission.
23. As, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the
petitioner had made remittances on his own accord on 24.09.2018 and on
18.01.2019 by transferring the amounts into Earnest Money Deposit
General Pool Account and not to the credit of any particular auction
account. It is also unnatural to accept that if a person making payment
towards the auction held, to keep quiet without approaching the
respondent bank and calling upon to execute the sale certificate and
deliver possession of unencumbered property. It is also to be seen that
the petitioner maintained static silence, before the respondent bank
issued notice on 11.03.2019 forfeiting the amount deposited by the
petitioner and even thereafter for a period of nearly one year in
approaching this court. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner only go to
show that the petitioner is fully aware of the consequences of his default
and the present writ petition filed is an after thought and a chance
litigation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent
bank.
15
24. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in MOHD.
ABDUL RAZAK's case (1 supra), while dealing with the issue relating to
the extension of period for making the payment of the bid amount by the
auction purchaser had held as under:
"At the outset, it should be pointed out that the grant of the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition would directly infringe upon the statutory prescription. Under the Enforcement Rules, a period of 15 days is prescribed for payment of the balance sale consideration. Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules after its amendment with effect from 04.11.2016 mandated that any extension of time beyond 15 days can be granted only upon the agreement in writing between the parties. After amendment with effect from 04.11.2016, the maximum time for making payment of 75% of the balance bid amount can be extended only up to three (3) months, provided there is an agreement between the purchaser and the secured creditor.
Therefore, the extension of time nearly five (5) years cannot be ordered either under pre-amended provision of Rule 9(4) of the Enforcement Rules or post amended provision of the Enforcement Rules. In fact, the very offer made by the petitioner by letter dated 25.07.2018 to proceed with the balance 75%, is completely contrary to the statutory prescription."
25. Having regard to the decision of this Court and in the absence of
the respondent bank agreeing to extend the period for making the
payment of 75% of the bid amount up to three months in writing as
stipulated in Rule 9(4) of the enforcement rules, the payment made by
the petitioner on 24.09.2018, in a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- itself cannot be
considered as payment towards the bid amount, being made after
01.09.2018, i.e. upon expiry of 15 days period specified in sale
conformation advice dated 18.08.2018. Further, upon such default by the
petitioner in making the balance payment within the time prescribed, the
respondent bank is free to bring the subject property for resale again 16
under Rule 9(5) of the Enforcement Rules and even the amount of 25%
paid by the petitioner had become liable for forfeiture at the hands of the
respondent bank. If only the petitioner had made the payment in full, it
would have been open for the petitioner to question the acts of the
respondent bank in not disclosing the alleged encumbrance being claimed
over the subject property. Further, no material whatso ever has been
placed on record, of the petitioner approaching the respondent bank and
bringing to the notice of the bank of existence of any such encumbrance
on the property sold at any time before. Thus, the claim of the petitioner
that the petitioner was precluded/prevented from making further payment
because of the encumbrances over the property and due to the
respondent bank not fixing the boundaries before the property is brought
to sale cannot be accepted as a valid claim, meriting consideration by this
Court. The judgments of a Division Bench of this Court, relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of MANDAVA KRISHNA
CHAITANYA V/s. UCO BANK2 and in W.P.No.450 of 2020, are clearly
distinguishable, more so, on account of the failure on the part of the
petitioner in the present case in failing to make the payment of the
balance bid amount within the time stipulated.
26. Though on account of failure on the part of the petitioner in
making balance amount within the time stipulated in the Sale
Confirmation Advice dated 18.08.2018, the respondent bank would
entitled to forfeit the amount so deposited by the petitioner, but, the
same would not confer any right on the respondent bank to forfeit the
balance payment made by the petitioner on his own accord into no lien
Earnest Money Deposit General Pool Account as the payments are made
only into General Pool Account and not specified to the account relating to
2 2018 (3) ALD 266 17
the auction of the property. Thus, the respondent bank ought not to have
accepted the payment made by the petitioner, credited to the General
Pool Account and ought to have refunded the same, which the respondent
bank failed to do so, unnecessarily giving a chance of hope for the
petitioner, to file the present petition.
27. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the action
of the respondent bank in issuing notice dated 11.03.2019 forfeiting the
amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be found fault with.
Accordingly, the challenge in the present writ petition to the notice dated
11.03.2019, is without merit and is hereby rejected. However, since, said
notice does not specify the amount being forfeited, it is clarified that the
same has to be restricted only to the extent of 25% of the bid amount
deposited by the petitioner and not that of the subsequent payments
made into no lien EMD general pool account.
28. In so far as the further payments made by the petitioner in a sum
of Rs.15,50,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on 24.09.2018 and
18.01.2019 respectively, are concerned, the respondent bank is liable to
refund the same to the petitioner. Since, the petitioner had remitted the
same into respondent bank EMD general pool account on his own accord
and the respondent bank had retained such amounts with out remitting
back the same to petitioner immediately, thereby depriving the petitioner
of making use of the said funds, the respondent bank is liable to refund
the same to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of respective payment, till the amount is refunded to
the petitioner by way of credit to his account or by issuing a demand
draft/ banker's cheque to the petitioner.
18
29. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of
this final order. No order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
_____________________ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Date: 29.01.2021 GJ
LR copy to be marked.
