IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.2450/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI H. NARASIMHA AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. H. VASUDEVA RESIDING AT #305, HERITAGE ESTATE, 14TH BLOCK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, ADV.,) AND:
1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, BENGALURU II FLOOR, OFFICE COMPELX BUILDING, SBI LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, COMPOUND NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH, BENGALURU, II FLOOR, OFFICE COMPLEX BUILDING, SBI LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, COMPOUND NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
(BY SRI FRANCIS XAVIER, ADV.,) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/DIRECTION/ ORDERS QUASHING/CANCELLING THE E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE DATED 29.09.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE E-AUCTION HELD ON 17.10.2018 REGARDING AUCTION SALE OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT HOSAKEREHALLI ROAD, NEAR GALIANJANEYA TEMPLE, BYTARAYANAPURA, BBMP WARD NO.41, BENGALURU- 560026 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order dated 29.11.2019, remaining amount has already been paid to the Bank on 02.12.2019 after deducting TDS.
2. The said submission is placed on record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent-Bank conducted E- Auction Sale Notice on 29.09.2018 published in the New Indian Express Newspaper issued in the name of authorized officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Bengaluru/respondent No.1 inviting bids for the sale of the property morefully described in the sale notice. The date and time of E-Auction was mentioned as 17.10.2018 from 11.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The reserved price was fixed to Rs.12.00 crores Earnest EMD was 10% of the reserved price i.e. 1.20 crores as per Annexure-A.
4. The E-Auction was conducted by the respondent-Bank on 17.10.2018 and the bid of the petitioner was accepted as an highest bidder. The same was confirmed by the respondents on 20.10.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for extension of last date till 19.1.2019. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has approached the YES Bank for obtaining loan for the purpose of purchase of the writ petition schedule property and they had agreed to disburse the loan but at the last moment, the YES Bank rejected the loan application only on the ground that the Valuation conducted by the YES Bank revealed that property is situated in the Buffer Zone of Vrushabhavathi River and there was an order by the National Green Tribunal for not putting up any construction in the Buffer Zone. Therefore, the petitioner made representation to the Respondent-Bank for refunding of money already deposited as per Annexure-J. Since, the representation of the petitioner not considered by the respondent, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. This Court while issuing notice on 18.1.2019, directed the respondents not to take any precipitative action for a period of three weeks and the interim order was continued from time to time. When the matter came up before this Court on 25.11.2019, Sri.P.P. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rupees One Crore by 29.11.2019. Placing the submission on record, interim order was continued. When the matter came up before this Court, today learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has tendered demand draft of Rupees one crore in favour of S.B.I, SAMB Customer Account through D.D. No.ITC 135047 dated 27.11.2019 drawn on T.M.B., (Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank), Yelahanka Branch. He also submits that out of Rs.12,25,00,000/-, petitioner has already paid Rupees eleven crores twenty two lakhs including one crore paid on that day.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.P. Hegde submits that total amount fixed for rupees tweleve crores and the entire amount has been paid and thereafter on the basis of subsequent events the petitioner made representation to the Bank, agreeing to pay Rupees twenty lakhs as one time settlement for the total interest towards property which was agreed by the respondent-Bank due to the delay for settlement. In all, petitioner has paid Rupees twelve crores twenty two lakhs entire amount inclusive of TDS. The same is not disputed by the respondent- Bank.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though when the E- Auction held there was a prohibition to sell the schedule property which is situated at Buffer Zone and subsequently, National Green Tribunal has cleared the prohibition. Therefore, petitioner has purchased the schedule property.
8. In view of subsequent development, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer to quash the sale notice would not arise, since the entire due amount to the respondent-Bank is paid by the petitioner. The respondent-Bank has to issue sale certificate in favour of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes to grant the prayer mainly on the ground that the amount was not paid within the time stipulated.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the E-Auction held on 17.10.2018 and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and the bid of the petitioner was accepted on 20.10.2018. Subsequently, when the petitioner came to know that the property in question is situated within the Buffer Zone of Vrushabhavati River, he made a representation for cancellation of E-Auction. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the National Green Tribunal has cleared the prohibition to purchase the property in question as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer, the fact remains that the respondent-Bank has not disputed in receipt of the entire bid amount of rupees twelve crores two lakhs, as there was a delay on the application filed by the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs.20,00,000/- without any objection the respondent has accepted twenty lakhs. In total, Respondent - Bank has accepted Rs.12,22,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Twenty Two Lakhs only) inclusive of TDS and it is not the case of the respondent-Bank that they have sold the schedule property in public Auction and there is no prohibition to issue sale certificate in favour of the petitioner, the Bank cannot withheld to issue sale certificate, when the respondent-Bank accepted the entire amount inclusive of twelve lakhs extra amount for the delay from the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed.
The respondent-Bank is directed to issue sale certificate in respect of the schedule property in question in favour of the petitioner in view of the E-Auction held on 17.10.2018 within a period of three weeks from today without dragging the petitioner further, in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BS