IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1014 OF 2016 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S.AXIS BANK LIMITED, SOUTHERN RECOVERY CELL, 2ND FLOOR, KARUMUTHU NILAYAM, 192, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI – 600 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.DHIRENDRA N.KATTI, ADV.) AND:
M/S.K.P.TEXTILES (CBE) P. LTD., 4/273, COTTONPET POST, NEAR SATTUR, PALLADAM TALUK, COIMBATORE-641 401. REP. BY V. K. PADMANABAN, S/O.KANDASWAMY, AGED 53 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NISCHAL DEV, ADV.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 38487 OF 2014 DATED 30/03/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH I.A. NOS.1, 2 AND 4 OF 2016 THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent – Bank to refund a sum of Rs.22,50,500/- along with interest, the respondent therein has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous in that the writ petitioner being the highest bidder having failed to deposit the balance amount is not entitled for the refund of the initial deposit of Rs.22,50,500/-. He submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing refund of the amount. Same is disputed by the respondent.
3. The facts would indicate that the respondent herein was the highest bidder of the property in question. 25% of the amount of the bid has already been deposited with the appellant – Bank. A sale confirmation advice was issued on 10.10.2012 but the sale confirmation was not issued. An appeal having been filed by the borrowers under S.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') granted an interim order on 09.10.2012 permitting the bank to go ahead with the proposed sale of the property on 10.10.2012 but directed the Bank to defer sale confirmation. Therefore the learned Single Judge was of the view that confirmation thereafter could be made by the respondent – Bank only after obtaining necessary orders from the Tribunal. In the interregnum there was a delay. The writ petitioner had issued a communication dated 26.11.2012 stating that since the period of one month has already elapsed and there is no certainty with regard to issuance of a sale certificate, the amount may be refunded. It was also noted that the respondent – Bank through their communication dated 12.04.2013 indicated with regard to an appeal in SA No. 628 of 2012 pending before the Tribunal. Much thereafter, the Bank issued a communication dated 12.06.2013, stating that the amount cannot be refunded. Same was challenged before the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order.
4. On hearing the learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The material on record has rightly been considered by the learned Single Judge. There was no confirmation of sale by the Bank. There was only an advice issued with regard to the same. The Tribunal passed an interim order restraining the respondent – Bank from confirming the sale. One month having elapsed, the amount was sought to be refunded. Long thereafter, there being no confirmation of sale by the Bank, the Bank was directed to refund the deposited amount.
5. We do not find any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel having nexus to the facts of the case. The contention of the appellant’s counsel that in terms of the contract, the initial deposit of 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.22,50,500/- cannot be refunded, cannot be accepted especially when the Tribunal has restrained the Bank from confirming the sale and there is no sale transaction.
In these circumstances, we find no good ground to entertain this appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 4 of 2016 do not survive for consideration and hence, dismissed.
sac* CT-RG Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE