TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht vacation of the interim orders dated 15-2-2007 and 21-2-2007, passed in W.P. (C) No. 41 of 2007. 3. On 15-2-2007, this Court posted the writ petition on 19-2-2007, and directed that the respondents, the applicant herein, shall not take any further steps on the basis of notification dated 30-12-2006 (sale notice). 4. By order dated 21-2-2007, this Court issued notice returnable after two weeks in the writ petition and ordered that the question of maintainability of the writ petition shall be kept open. This Court also extended the earlier interim order till the returnable date. 5. To decide this case, it would be necessary to take note of some relevant facts : The writ petitioners and their deceased father secured a loan fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs bearing No. 677781 dated 12-5-2006, of Indian Bank, on presentation was dishonoured. Thereafter, the writ petitioners wrote letter dated 11-7-2006, admitting that there is no fund in the bank and requested the bank not to present the other cheques for encashment. Eventually, the bank took possession of the secured property on 16-9-2006, by exercise of powers under section 13(4) of the Act (annexure 8 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the bank issued a sale notification dated 30-12-2006, offering the mortgaged property for sale to the interested purchasers. The bank received three offers in response to the aforesaid sale notice and the offer of respondent No. 3 was found to be above the reserve price and accordingly, the bank w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank to proceed under the provisions of section 13(4) of the Act, are not maintainable in law. 10. Mr. Dutta also contented that neither at the stage of taking over possession of the property, i.e., 16-9-2006, nor at the stage of issuing the sale notice on 30-12-2006, the writ petitioners have sought to move the competent court challenging the action of the respondent-bank and on this ground alone, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained. 11. In support of his contentions, Mr. Dutta has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 120 Comp. Cas. 373 1 (SC) and also a Division Bench decision in Hemant Automobiles v. Union Bank of India AIR 2006 NOC 1547 (Guj. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. 15. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Rose Valley Real Estate and Constructions Ltd., has drawn attention to the counter-affidavit filed by him in the instant case. In the said counter-affidavit, it is contended on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the respondent-bank is under a legal duty and obligation to refund the amount of Rs. 60.75 lakhs deposited by respondent No. 3 with accumulated interest thereon, which amount was tendered by respondent No. 3 being the highest offerer, in response to the sale notice dated December 30, 2006. It is further contended that respondent No. 3 which deals with public money has reached a comprehensive decision to disassociate itself from the purchase process emanating from the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners also failed to challenge the sale notice immediately after the same was notified as the challenge to the sale notice is on the ground that offers could be submitted by all categories of persons and the sale was not confined only to Scheduled Tribe category of persons. If that was the reason for the objection of the writ petitioners, they could have immediately made a challenge to the aforesaid sale notice dated 30-12-2006. But they did not move a competent court with reasonable haste and waited till the sale was actually made and respondent No. 3 was chosen as the intending purchaser with the highest price offer. 19. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, this Court is of the view that the writ petition at the instance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
