Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ratnamani George Vs Authorized Officer (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C) No. 9687 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/05/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ratnamani George Vs Authorized Officer, Canara Bank (Kerala High Court)

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to confirm the sale of the property auctioned by the petitioners after accepting the balance bid amount.

2. According to the petitioners, lured by a publication in the website of the respondent intimating the e-auction of an immovable property, a communication was sent by the petitioners on 18-11-2021 offering their bid. As per the terms of the auction notice, petitioners deposited 10% of the reserve price amounting to Rs.10,53,000/- on 06-12-2021 and thereafter the auction was held on 08-12-2021, pursuant to which the petitioners have been notified as the successful bidder having bid the property for Rs.1,06,25,000/-. In the meantime, petitioners were intimated by the respondent that since the Advocate for the respondent had advised not to confirm the sale till the disposal of W.P.(C) No. 27485 of 2021, which was filed by one Sri.E.K. Rajan, the sale could be confirmed only after the disposal of the said writ petition. Relying upon the judgment in Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Company and Another [(2022) SCC Online SC 169], petitioners contend that the sale of the property ought to be confirmed in their favour, after accepting the balance bid amount.

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27485 of 2021 was the borrower who had challenged the sale notice scheduling the sale of the secured interest on 08-12-2021. As per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27485 of 2021 rendered today, this Court has found that the notice of sale was not properly served on the borrower, in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002. The notice of sale has thus been set aside. Since the notice of sale which resulted in the petitioners bidding for the property has been set aside, there is no sale in the eye of law. Since there is no valid sale under law, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031