2015 (3) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... visions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, the Respondent No. 1 published an advertisement putting up various immovable properties for sale. The petitioners became interested in Property No. 4 being a flat at 7, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. The advertisement appeared in the Times of India on July 17, 2012. The petitioners participated in the sale and were declared as the highest bidder. A sale certificate dated November 2, 2012 was issued in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 by the Respondent No. 1. It is pointed out from the advertisement as well as the sale certificate that the immovable property p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was obtained in respect of the property concerned. The valuer considered the area of the property. The valuer found the built up area to be 1,807.7 square feet and the super built up area to be 2,258 square feet. Accordingly, the bank published advertisement inviting sale. In the advertisement the property is described to be having 2,258 square feet of super built up area. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. The Respondent No. 1 proceeded to put up few immovable properties up for sale by the sale notice dated July 17, 2012. The terms and conditions of the sale are relevant. The Respondent No. 1 invited sealed tenders from the public for the purchase of the properties mention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he flat and satisfy themselves as to the area available and other aspects. The contention of the writ petitioners that, the calculation of the super built up area published in the sale notice is without any basis. Firstly, the writ petitioners made no effort to check the actual area of the immovable property put up for sale. They participated in the sale without making such inquiry. The writ petitioners cannot be allowed to urge to that there is a misdescription in the area of the property. Secondly, the Respondent No. 1 obtained a valuation report with regard to the immovable property concerned. The valuer calculated the built up area and the super built up area and gave a basis for such calculation. It is not for the writ petitioners to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X