Case Law Details
Abhisek P. Tibrewala Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that exercise of power under Article 226 untenable as remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal available to the petitioner challenging forfeiture of earnest money deposit.
Facts- The Petitioner has sought to challenge the communication dated 22 February 2008, issued by Respondent No.2-Bank forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 13,75,000/- with direction to the Respondent-Bank to refund the amount with 18% interest.
The Respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Secularisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(‘SARFAESI Act’) on 11 January 2008. A public notice was issued for sale of property one shop cum godown. Petitioner tendered offer on 12 February 2008. An auction was conducted. Petitioner deposited Rs. 13,75,000/- as regards earnest money deposit. Petitioner was declared as successful bidder for the sum of Rs. 1,53,00,000/- and if the Petitioner did not make payment of 25% of the offer amount less Earnest Money Deposit amount within two days and balance amount within 15 days, the Earnest Money Deposit amount was to be forfeited. The Respondent No.2 -Bank forfeited the amount of Earnest Money Deposited by impugned communication.
Conclusion- We are called upon to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the Petitioner that too when remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal is now available. Thus, the appropriate direction in these circumstances would be to direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal to consider and decide the application made by the Petitioner in a time bound manner and to set a time table accordingly.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
