AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns the auction notice dated 17.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.1-Canara Bank, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), being the notice for e-auction under the SARFAESI Act for sale of an immovable property being a Shop No.G-2, admeasuring 55 sq. mts., located on the ground floor of Building A, Village Panchayat of Queula, Ponda, South Goa.
The Petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser under sale deed dated 28.01.2019 registered before the Sub-Registrar at Ponda, Goa and claims to have been put in possession of the suit shop since the date of sale, wherein she claims, to be running a distribution business since that date. It is the Petitioner's case that she has already obtained a loan from the Respondent No.3-Bank with whom the said shop is now mortgaged to secure the said loan.
The impugned auction notice specifies that the sale of the suit shop is for recovery of the amount of ₹9,77,369.59 claimed by the Respondent No.2 as due from Respondent Nos.4 and 5 as on 30.06.2022.
The Petitioner makes a statement before us that she is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of ₹9,77,369.59 due from Respondent Nos.4 and 5, with Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Canara Bank so as to secure such amounts, as is intended by Respondent No.1-Bank to be realized from the auction.
However, from the submissions as urged by the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, we find it quite strange that there is a resistance to receive such amount of ₹9,77,369.59 as may be deposited by the Petitioner. In our opinion, in fact, if such amount is received at this stage before the auction could be held, the entire purpose of the auction itself would stand achieved and in the peculiar situation, the parties stand before us. However, as the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is on instructions to make such statement, it would be appropriate that the competent officer of Respondent No.1 places on record an affidavit as to why Respondent No.1 would not accept the amount of ₹9,77,369.59, if so deposited by the Petitioner, which is the very purpose of the auction notice as impugned.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served by passing the following interim order:-
a) Respondent No.1 may proceed with the auction and receive the bids, however, the sale shall not be finalized;
b) An affidavit of the competent officer of Respondent No.1 be filed, placing on record the details of the bids and in regard to what has been observed by us in paragraph 4 above.
The objection on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the maintainability of this petition on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy is kept open to be considered on the adjourned date of hearing.
All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
Stand over to 02.11.2022.