Sharmila Jain vs State Bank Of India And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

The residential property of the appellant had been auctioned for a sum of Rs. 46.75 lacs. The auction purchaser, who has since been impleaded as a respondent in the present appeal, had deposited this entire amount. The appellant had filed this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal below declining the prayer made in one of the applications filed in the pending SA to set aside the possession notice and to handover physical possession of the property back to the appellant.

On 9.1.2014, the Counsel for the appellant had pleaded before the Tribunal below that she was ready and willing to clear the dues of the Bank if some time is granted. The Tribunal below had issued directions to the Bank to charge interest @ 12% simple from the date of NPA till recovery while giving 6 months time to the appellant to pay the balance amount through equal monthly instalments.

The Counsel for the appellant while arguing the appeal had pleaded that the appellant is willing to comply with the direction of the Tribunal below to pay the NPA amount with 12% interest and in fact has paid this amount but despite that the Tribunal below had declined to interfere in the action of the Bank of putting the property to auction.

While issuing notice in the appeal, the Bank was permitted to proceed ahead with the auction but not to finalize the sale or auction till next date of hearing.

During the pendency of the appeal, the property was auctioned. The auction purchaser was impleaded as a party. The appeal came up for hearing on 25th March, 2015 when the Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant had paid the amount as per direction of the Tribunal below. The Counsel for the Bank, at that stage, had pointed out that a sum of Rs. 8,53,928.18 was still due. This Tribunal after examining the statement of account found that a sum of Rs. 4,82,740.18 would be due by calculating the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. Since the auction was yet to be confirmed, opportunity was given to the appellant to at least deposit a sum of Rs. 4,82,740.18 if she wanted to save the residential property.

The auction purchaser, at that stage, submitted before this Tribunal that he had purchased this property in auction with an understanding that sale deed would be executed in his favour within one month. The auction purchaser thus was not keen to continue with the auction. Accordingly, he was given option and liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by him by moving an appropriate application. On doing so, the Bank was directed to refund the amount within one week of the date of application. The right of the auction purchaser to seek compensation was kept open.

Today, the auction purchaser appearing in person states that he has withdrawn his amount and the Bank has refunded the same. He, however, pleads that he is entitled to seek compensation for the amount which had remained with the Bank. The right of the auction purchaser to claim any compensation shall remain open and he may move an appropriate application or may approach any appropriate Forum for award of such compensation as may be deemed necessary.

The Counsel for the Bank otherwise has pointed out that the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 4,82,740.18. This being the position, the appellant apparently has paid the requisite amount as was directed and, thus, has become entitled to reclaim possession of the property which was taken from the appellant. The Counsel for the respondent Bank has not shown any opposition on behalf of the Bank to handover the possession of the property back to the appellant once she has deposited the amount. The Bank is, therefore, directed to handover the possession of the residential house back to the appellant within a period of two weeks from today.

In view of what has been noticed above, nothing is left to be decided in the present appeal which apparently is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. The SA is still pending. The right of the Bank in regard to any remaining claim can be pleaded before the Tribunal below in the pending SA which can accordingly be decided. Since the appeal has been disposed of, the pending applications (IA's No. 372 of 2014 and No. 86 of 2015) are also disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.