AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 06-08-2026
The Writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:
I. To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents United Commercial Bank to refund a sum of 3,28,000/- (Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand) in lieu of refund of auction amount Who is the highest bidder participated in E-auction sale for purchasing a chunk of land measuring 6 Dhurs pertaining to Khata No. 03, Khesra No. 33 situated in Lohiya Nagar, P.S- Mufassil, District-Begusarai.
II. To direct the respondents to make the payment of penal interest of the sum mentioned above on the account of delay and latches on the part of respondents.
III. To any other relief/s to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The brief facts, as culled out from the Writ petition, are that respondent No. 3, the Authorised Officer of United Commercial Bank, published an E-auction sale notice for the sale of immovable property duly mentioned in Annexure-4 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The proposed E-auction sale was scheduled for 23.03.2020. The petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 13,12,000/-, who was required to deposit the bid amount in accordance with the terms of the auction. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited 25% of the bid amount, equivalent to Rs. 3,28,000/- and for payment of rest of the 75% of the amount, the Bank gave 15 days time, as per Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. However, the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount, of the purchase price due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the cancellation of the E-auction sale. Further, the petitioner made a representation on 22.09.2021 before the Manager, UCO Bank, seeking refund of the amount deposited by him. Despite the said representation, the Bank did not refund the amount. Hence, the present Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents for refund of the bid amount deposited by the petitioner.
A detail counter affidavit was filed by the respondent UCO Bank. The contents of the counter affidavit fairly disclose that as per Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, the petitioner was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount which was inclusive of earnest money deposited. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to deposit remaining 75% of the sale price to be deposited on or before 15 days form the date of auction as per rule 9(4). As the petitioner failed to deposit the remaining amount within its stipulated period, the amount deposited by him was forfeited in terms of Rule 9(5), and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the said amount.
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the Respondents.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110, held as follows:
The High Court
overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.
In case of Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:-
97.This court has time and again, reminded the high courts that they should not entertain petition under article 226 of the constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT.
In case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs UCO Bank & Ors reported in 2024 Insc 297, the same principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The above citations squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Taking into consideration that it is purely a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-UCO bank, and also that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach appropriate forum, this Court is of the opinion that Writ petition is not maintainable Under article 226 of Constitution of India. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for availing his remedy, and the concerned authority shall also consider the aspect of limitation in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.