Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ag (Sonali Mukherjee & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 18 August, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
W. P. 7395 (W) OF 2015
18.08.2017
ag (Sonali Mukherjee & Anr. -vs- Union of India & Ors.)
Sl. No.35
Court no.13
Mr. Soumya Majumdar
Mr. Samim Ahmmed
Mr. Victor Chatterjee
Mr. Utsav Dutta - for the Petitioners
Mr. Atish Dipankar Ray
Mrs. Sanjukta Ray - for UCO Bank
Mr. Gautam Chakraborty - for Central Bank of India
The petitioners seek registration of a deed of conveyance in respect of an
immovable property purchased by the petitioners in a sale conducted by UCO Bank
under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in the alternative refund of the purchase
price.
The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are
interested in refund of the purchase price, as there is a dispute between UCO Bank and
Central Bank of India over the property. He submits that, the petitioners had
participated in the sale process under the Act of 2002. They became successful therein.
The sale was confirmed by UCO Bank on September 15, 2014 and the sale certificate
was issued on October 14, 2014. The petitioners have since been dispossessed from the
property on March 12, 2015. He refers to the affidavits used by UCO Bank and Central
Bank of India and submits that, there are disputes between the two banks with regard to
the property concerned. In the fitness of things, therefore, the Court should direct UCO
Bank to refund the purchase price to the petitioners.
2
The learned advocate appearing for UCO Bank submits that, the property was put
on sale under the Act of 2002, where the petitioners had participated. The petitioners
were declared as highest bidders on September 15, 2017 and the sale in favour of the
petitioners was confirmed on that date. The petitioners had applied for extension of time
to make full payment on September 18, 2014. The sale certificate was issued on October
14, 2014. The possession was made over on October 15, 2014. On November 14, 2014,
the petitioners had asked for registration of the deed of conveyance. Thereafter, the
petitioners on March 12, 2015 had raised complaint that the petitioners had been
dispossessed from the property. The so-called dispossession happened subsequent to
the sale and the petitioners being put in possession of the property, the question of
refund of purchase price does not arise.
The learned advocate appearing for Central Bank of India submits that, the
Central Bank of India had also sold the property under the Act of 2002 and that, the sale
was prior to the date of sale by UCO Bank. The respondent nos. 13 and 14 are the
purchasers of such immovable property.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The two prayers of the petitioners, one being in the alternative to the other, require consideration. The petitioners claim to have purchased the immovable property in an auction sale undertaken by UCO Bank under the Act of 2002. UCO Bank acknowledges the petitioners to be the purchasers of the immovable property. It is the common case of the parties that, the petitioners had paid the entire consideration to UCO Bank. The entitlement of the petitioners to receive the deed of conveyance in respect of the property concerned is not denied by UCO Bank. 3
In such circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to obtain the conveyance from UCO Bank in respect of the property concerned in accordance with law.
So far as the refund of the purchase price is concerned, it appears from the records that, the petitioners had participated in the sale conducted by UCO Bank. They were put in possession of the property concerned on October 15, 2014. They had issued a letter on November 14, 2014 to UCO Bank asking for execution of deed of conveyance. At no point of time prior to March 12, 2015, did the petitioners allege that they were dispossessed. Since the petitioners did not ever complain that, they were dispossessed from the property and the UCO Bank had put the petitioners in possession, the petitioners are not entitled to refund the purchase price.
So far as the Central Bank of India is concerned, such Bank and its so-called purchasers are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to protect their interest, if any.
W. P. 7395 (W) of 2015 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)