M/s Siddhi Vinayak Company vs Canara Bank & Ors

R. D. Khare, Chairperson

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an auction purchaser of the property, which was mortgaged with the Bank and 25% of the auction sale amount has already been deposited by the appellant. It is contended that the appellant was not made party in the proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 3-Borrower. The appellant was impleaded as respondent vide order dated 12.04.2024, copy of which has been appended as annexure no. 4 to the memo of appeal. It is further contended that without serving any copy of the application to the appellant, order dated 20.04.2024 was passed, by which the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the property in question till further order. It is also contended that the appellant filed an application for clarification before the Tribunal below, as to whether the direction issued by the Bank vide letter dated 04.05.2024 to the appellant for depositing 75% of the balance amount is payable in the light of the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal below or not. The said application has been allowed by the Tribunal below vide order impugned stating that the appellant-Auction Purchaser is free to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount in time as per rule and shall not create any third party interest over the property in question till next date of hearing. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent no. 1 & 2-Bank may be directed not to force the appellant for payment of balance 75% of the sale amount at this stage in view of the existing order dated 20.04.2024 of the Tribunal below.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the borrower has filed an application for forfeiture of 25% of the auction amount deposited by the appellant, which is pending before the Tribunal below. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Borrower submits that the same shall be withdrawn by the respondent no. 3-Borrower.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Bank will not force the appellant-Auction Purchaser to deposit remaining 75% of the bid amount as the statutory period has already lapsed.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that the appellant has approached before the Hon’ble High Court by filing writ petition no. 20743/2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2024 on the ground that the appeal is pending before this Tribunal, therefore, the appellant may pursue the same. Copy of the said order is appended as annexure no. 3 at page no. 18 of the memo of document dated 01.07.2024 filed by the respondent no. 3, which is taken on record.

In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is finally disposed off with a direction upon the Tribunal below to consider and decide the S.A., which is stated to be pending consideration, in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.