9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion took place on 10.04.2018. The respondents were the highest bidders for a total sum of Rs. 1,42,50,000/-. They deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e., Rs. 36,00,000/- on the day of the auction itself. The auction was confirmed but the sale certificate was not issued and the sale deed was not executed as the respondents could not deposit the balance sale consideration within 15 days, may be for the reason that the appellant-Bank refused to accept the balance amount for various reasons. Finally, the appellant-Bank vide communication dated 24.12.2019 cancelled the auction and refunded the amount deposited by the respondents by means of four demand drafts which were never encashed by the respondents. 4. The respondents as such invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the action of the appellant-Bank cancelling the auction dated 10.04.2018 unilaterally and for seeking a direction to issue the sale certificate after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,06,50,000/-. 5. The aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3820 of 2020 filed by the respondents was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the High Court holding that the appellant-B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,06,50,000/- within 15 days so that the sale certificate may be issued. 9. It may be noted that the respondents at no point of time have denied payment of the balance auction money as demanded to be paid within the 15 days period. It was only the appellant-Bank that denied the issuance of the sale certificate, first on the pretext that the guarantor had filed Writ Petition No. 12390 of 2018 challenging the e-auction notice dated 17.03.2018 and had obtained a stay order on 18.04.2018. Secondly, the appellant-Bank on 08.03.2018 had made a complaint to the CBI and that ED took suo moto cognizance whereby an advisory was issued to the appellant- Bank not to release the original property documents and that the same be kept in safe custody of the bank till further directions of the ED. 10. The appellant-Bank issued e-auction Notice on 17.03.2018 after it had already made the complaint to the CBI but this aspect of the matter was not disclosed in the advertisement. Thus, a conscious decision was taken by the appellant-Bank to go ahead with the e-auction despite there being a complaint to the CBI. It is subsequent to the complaint to the CBI that the e-auction notice was issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.12.2019, by which the appellant-Bank took a decision to cancel the auction sale and to return the amount deposited by the respondents, is completely silent as regards the default, if any, committed by the respondents in depositing the balance auction amount as per the mandate of Rule 9(4) of the Rules. The said plea was taken by the appellant-Bank for the first time through the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. It is well recognized that the validity of an order can only be adjudged on the basis of the reasoning contained in the order and the said reasoning cannot be supplemented in any manner much less by means of a counter affidavit or a supplementary affidavit when the parties have entered into a litigation. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 it has been clearly laid down that the parties are not permitted to raise new pleas not contained in the order impugned while assailing the correctness or the validity of such an order. In view of the law so laid down, the appellant- Bank was certainly not entitled to raise the plea of default under Rule 9(4) of the Rules through the counter affidavit. 13. Notwithstanding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , an advisory of the ED and a stay from the High Court. The silence on part of the appellant-Bank in either immediately revoking the sale confirmation or refusing to extend the time, impliedly amounted to extension of time in writing with consent. 17. Secondly, the non-deposit of the balance sale consideration within the time limit prescribed under Rule 9(4) was not attributable to the respondents so as to call them defaulters within the meaning of the provisions of Rule 9 (4) and (5) of the Rules. 18. The correspondence on record clearly reveals that the respondents were always ready and willing to deposit the balance auction amount of Rs.1,06,50,000/- and had rather submitted a bank draft dated 15.10.2022 of the said amount and had requested for the issuance of the sale certificate and possession of the auction property. The said correspondence clearly establishes the bona fide of the respondents and it was only the appellant-Bank who had avoided the issuance of the sale certificate. There is no material on record to justify non-acceptance of the balance sale consideration from the respondents within 15 days of the confirmation of the sale and whatever pleas have been taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
