9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situated at 3rd Main Road, II Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, in a public auction conducted by respondent-bank in terms of provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 having paid the entire bid amount of Rs. 99,50,000/- and having been issued a sale certificate is before this Court in these writ petitions. 2. W.P. No. 52607/2017 is filed seeking issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent-bank to put the petitioner in possession of the aforesaid property and to deliver the keys. 3. W.P. No. 53482/2017 is filed for direction to pay the petitioner interest accrued on fixed deposit certificate dated 14.09.2015 for a sum of Rs. 99,50,000/- from 13.08.2015 to 26.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire amount paid by the petitioner was kept in fixed deposit on 14.09.2015. (c) That the application in S.A.No. 313/2015 came to be dismissed on 08.06.2017 and appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Sale certificate was issued and registered in favour of the petitioner on 27.07.2017. As such, petitioner is entitled for the interest on the said amount between 13.08.2015 to 26.07.2017 at 6.75% interest compoundable every three months. (d) That in terms of Section 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961, 1% of tax was required to be deducted by the petitioner at source. However, entire amount of Rs. 99,50,000/- without deducting Rs. 99,500/- was paid to the respondent-bank. Respondent-bank despite request by the petitioner for refund of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no fault of the petitioner, the entire amount has been withheld illegally and unjustifiably by the respondent -bank. Therefore respondent-bank be directed to pay compound interest at the rate of 12% p.a. He relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Govind Kumar Sharma and anr Vs Bank of Baroda and others in SLP (C) No.24155 of 2018. 9. Necessary to note the Judgment of the Apex Court in the said case was rendered in the circumstances where the entire money has been refunded and there has been no issue of delivery of possession of property. In the instant case respondent-bank as already noted above has undertaken the endeavour to deliver possession of the subject property to the petitioner. In that view of the matter this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
