The two writ petitions are filed challenging the very same sale proceedings initiated by the Bank, who has been impleaded as respondent in both the writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11017 of 2014 is the proprietor of a firm, which had availed of a loan from the respondent-Bank, in which default was committed and proceedings were initiated against the property of the proprietor's wife, who stood as guarantor and offered her property as security.
2. The wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.11017 of 2014 is the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C). No.10599 of 2014. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10599 of 2014 has a contention that the 2nd respondent therein entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner, which is produced as Exhibit P4. The petitioner also claims that an amount of Rs.55 lakhs has been paid to the 2nd respondent.
3. This Court, on admission of the above writ petition, directed the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10599 of 2014, to deposit the balance Rs.10 lakhs as per Exhibit P4 agreement. The petitioner prays that so much extent of the property, agreed to be sold to the petitioner be released from the liability. The petitioner's contention that he has paid substantial amounts towards sale consideration does not create any title on the petitioner. Even a valid conferment of title would be subject to the prior security interest created. The utmost plea that could be raised is a charge on the property, if the payment of advance is proved. Such an adjudication would be beyond the scope of the instant proceedings. The order directing deposit of Rs.10 lakhs, could only be deemed to be one intended at discerning the bona fides of the petitioner, who had sought for an interim order of stay of confirmation of sale. The petitioner's specific contention in the writ petition is that the petitioner would pay the balance sale consideration, provided the land is registered in his name. It is trite that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the right of the petitioner to get specific performance of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
4. W.P.(C) No.11017 of 2014 was filed by the original borrower, who is the husband of the intended vendor in Exhibit P4 agreement in W.P.(C).No.10599 of 2014. W.P.(C).No.11017 of 2014, however, does not disclose anything about such an agreement having been executed. In such circumstance, W.P. (C).No.10599 of 2014 cannot at all be entertained. The petitioner therein would have to seek remedies before the appropriate forum for specific performance or for return of advance money, if so advised. The deposit made by the petitioner, which lies as sundry credit, will have to be returned to the petitioner, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. In W.P.(C).No.11017 of 2014, the petitioner only prays for instalments to settle the amounts due in the loan account. In view of the prayer made, the petitioner shall satisfy the entire loan account in twelve equal monthly instalments as directed herein below:
(i) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent within two weeks of receipt of the same.
(ii) The respondent shall quantify the amounts due under the loan account of the petitioner including the expenses incurred for recovery and inform the petitioner in writing the amounts due as on 15.06.2014.
(iii) The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 28.06.2014 and the subsequent instalments on the 28th of each succeeding month.
(iv) Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the remittances as per this order are made without any default.
(v) On the petitioner making two consecutive defaults, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.
(vi) On the 12th instalment being satisfied, the respondent shall issue a statement of the interest accrued from 15.06.2014, which shall be satisfied by the petitioner on the 28th of the succeeding month.
(vii) On the petitioner satisfying the entire arrears, the recovery proceedings shall be unenforceable.
(viii) It is made clear that the respondent shall be free to revive and proceed with the recovery if the above conditions are not complied with and the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated and continued are only kept in abeyance at the stage at which it was interdicted.
W.P.(C).No.10599 of 2014 stands dismissed with the observations as indicated in paragraph 4 and W.P.(C).No.11017 of 2014 stands disposed of as indicated in paragraph 5 of this judgment. Parties left to suffer their costs.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )