Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohan Singh Guleria vs State Of Hp And Others on 20 November, 2017
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 801 of 2017.
Decided on 20.11.2017.
.
Mohan Singh Guleria ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and others. ... Respondents.
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.
Anup Rattan, Addl. Advocate General for
respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate for respondent
No.2. to 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.(Oral).
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) That the respondents may be directed to confirm the sale held on 15.12.2016 in pursuance to Annexure P-1;
b) That the respondents No.2 to 3 may be directed to communicate the balance amount to be deposited by the petitioner;1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 2c) That respondents No. 2 to 4 may be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the auction proceeding in pursuance to Annexure P-13 without insisting for earnest money deposit and money already deposited by the petitioner may be adjusted towards the future bid to held on 8th May, 2017;
.
d) That the impugned order contained in Annexure P-10 and P-13 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
e) The record of the case may be called for."
2. Undisputed facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that respondent No.4-Authorized Officer, HDFC Bank Ltd., initiated action under SARFAESI Act against M/s Shivansh Autozone Pvt. Ltd., i.e., its borrower for not repaying the dues of respondent No.2-Bank availed against credit facilities. In this process, respondent No.4 in its capacity as the authorized officer of the bank proceeded under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of the property i.e., Commercial Showroom, NH 21, Village Bagla Muhalchalah, Chakkar, Badbast No. 207, Sub Tehsil Bath, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Thereafter respondent No.4 invited bid for auction of the said commercial property by issuing advertisement Annexure P-1. Reserve price of the property was fixed at `4,50,00,000/-. 29.11.2016 was the date of inspection on which date, property could be inspected between 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. The date and time of auction were fixed as 15.12.2016 between 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Last date for deposit of earnest amount was 9.12.2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 3 upto 16:00 hours. The petitioner who was eligible to participate in the bid deposited 10% of the reserve price vide RTGS receipt, Annexure P-2. Auction of the property was conducted on 15th December, 2016, .
on which date the bid of the petitioner for an amount of `4.50crore was accepted vide communication of even date Annexure P-3. The petitioner was directed vide said communication to deposit an amount of `67.50lac towards 15% of the auction amount as per the terms and conditions of the auction notice. Said amount of `67.50lac stood deposited by the petitioner on 15.12.2016 (Annexure P-4). Though as per terms of the auction, the successful bidder was to pay balance 75% of the sale consideration i.e. an amount of `3,37,50,000/- within 15 days from the date of auction i.e., 15.12.2016, however, as the petitioner could not do so, the petitioner was accordingly directed by the respondent vide communication dated 31.12.2016 Annexure P-7 to do the needful on or before 20.1.2017 failing which amount deposited by the petitioner was to be forfeited. This was to be done along with interest @ 13% for the delayed period.
3. In response thereto, petitioner informed the respondent-
bank that the petitioner be granted some more time to make the full and final payment and assured that all outstanding payment shall be settled on or before 10.2.2017. In the meanwhile, an amount of `15.00 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 4 lac was also deposited by the petitioner with respondent Bank on 24.1.2017. Vide communication dated 18.3.2017, Annexure P-10, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.4 on behalf of respondent .
No.2-Bank that as he had failed to make payment within the extended period of time i.e. till 28.2.2017 as was permitted by the bank, amount of `1,27,50,000/- which stood deposited by the petitioner to respondent-Bank stands forfeited as per the terms and conditions of auction and as per Rule 9(4) and 9 (5) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) (Amendment) Rules, 2002. This was followed by issuance of notice Annexure P-13, whereby the property was put for e-
auction on 8.5.2017.
4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed present writ petition praying for the reliefs already enumerated above.
5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the impugned act of respondent-
Bank forfeiting the amount so deposited by the petitioner and further putting the property to e-auction is prima facie arbitrary, as the petitioner had already made necessary arrangements for the payment of the entire amount as would be evident from Annexure P-11 and P-
12 appended with the writ petition which demonstrate that petitioner stood granted term loan of `375.00 lacs for purchase of property in ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 5 issue by TATA Capital Financial Services Limited which amount was to be disbursed in the month of March, 2017 itself. According to learned Senior Counsel despite petitioner's having made respondent-
.
Bank aware of the fact that the entire amount would be deposited by the month of April, 2017, the impugned action was taken by respondent-Bank to the deterrent of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that there was no undue delay in making the payment on behalf of the petitioner, as petitioner was making arrangements in this regard and delay if any was caused by respondent-bank as there was no confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner so made by respondents No.2 and 4 to facilitate the petitioner's obtaining the loan for the purchase of the said property. It was further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that petitioner was willing not only to deposit the entire balance amount but was also willing to compensate the respondent-Bank for additional expenses which stood incurred by it, details of which stand furnished by the respondent-Bank on the directions of this Court by way of an affidavit dated 30.6.2017.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 while defending the act of respondent-Bank submitted that there was no arbitrariness in the acts of the respondent-
::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 6Bank, as the respondent-Bank had acted in its best interest pursuant to the acts of omission on the part of the petitioner to comply with the terms of auction. It was further submitted by learned Senior Counsel .
for respondents No.2 to 4 that even otherwise Rule 9(4) and 9 (5) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 as amended upto date did not permit extension of period beyond three months from the date of auction for the purpose of depositing the auction amount.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.
8. Moot question which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether Rule 9(4) of the Rules (supra) which stood amended w.e.f. 4.11.2016 will govern the auction process which stood initiated on 2.11.2016 or the said auction process is to be governed by the Rules which were in vogue as on the date when the said auction process was put into motion by way of issuance of an advertisement. Besides this, the other question which this Court is to answer is as to whether the act of respondents No.2 and 4 of forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner with them and further putting the property to re-auction is arbitrary or not.
::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 79. We will deal with the legal issue first. We are doing so for the reason that when this Court had observed as to what prejudice will be caused to the respondent-Bank in case the petitioner is directed to .
deposit the balance amount with interest, it was stated on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 4 that the said respondents even if they so intent to, can't do the same because of the bar so created by Rule 9(4) (supra) as it stands post amendment.
10. The Security Interest (Enforcement) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Section (1) and Clause (b) of Sub Section (2) of Section 38 read with Sub Sections (4), (10) and (12) of Section 13 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Amendment was carried out in these Rules vide SO 1046 (E) dated 3.11.2016 which amendment has come into force w.e.f. 4.11.2016. As per the said amendment, Rule 9 as it stands post amendment reads as under:
"9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- [(1) No sale of immovable property under these Rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-Rule (6) of Rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower:
PROVIDED FURTHER that if the sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub Rule (5) of Rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of note less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.] ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 8 (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:
PROVIDED that no sale under this Rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-Rule .
(5) of [Rule 8] :
PROVIDED FURTHER that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.
[(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty-five per cent of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again.] (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months.].
(5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-Rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.
(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these Rules.
(7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorised officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him:
[PROVIDED that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of the money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen days, from date of finalisation of the sale.] (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer [shall] issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make, the payment accordingly.
(9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-Rule (7) above.
(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-Rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not."::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 9
11. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 9 as it stands post amendment envisages that the balance amount of purchase price shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before 15th day of .
confirmation of immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and secured creditor which in any case will not exceed three months.
12. Rule 9 as it stood before the said amendment read as under:-
"9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.-
(1) No sale of immovable property under these Rules shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-Rule (6) or notice of sale has been served to the borrower.
(2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:
Provided that no sale under this Rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9 :
Provided further that if the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.
(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately pay a deposit of twenty-five per cent of the amount of the sale price, to the authorised officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be sold again.
(4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties.
(5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-Rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.
(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised officer exercising the ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 10 power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to these Rules.
(7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorised officer may, if he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest .
due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him.
[Provided that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within fifteen day, from date of finalisation of the sale.] (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised officer 15[shall] issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and take steps to make, the payment accordingly.
(9) The authorised officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-Rule (7) above.
(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-Rule (6) shall specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not."
13. Sub Rule (4) of un-amended Rule 9 thus, inter alia, provided that the balance amount of purchase shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before 15th day of confirmation of the sale of immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in between the parties. The embargo of maximum of three months was not there in the un-amended Rules.
This embargo has been created by the amended Rules which have come in force w.e.f. 4.11.2016.
14. Now coming to the facts of this case, herein the process to auction the property in issue was put into motion by way of issuance of an advertisement which was published in the newspapers on ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 11 2.11.2016. In other words, when the process to auction the property in dispute was put into motion by way of issuance of advertisement, the amended Rules were not in force. The Rules which governed the field, .
provided that the amount so payable by the purchaser to the secured creditor could be paid within such period as may be agreed upon in writing between the parties. It is settled principle of law that a process put into motion has to be taken to its logical conclusion as per the Rules which were in vogue at the time when the process was initiated and even if there is subsequent change in the Rules, then also the process which already stood initiated has to be completed as per old Rules itself.
15. A five Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 has held:-
"27. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory Rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of statements, such as one finds in a work of fiction/non fiction or even in a judgment of a court of law. There is a technique required to draft a legislation as well as to understand a legislation. Former technique is known as legislative drafting and latter one is to be found in the various principles of 'interpretation of statutes'. Vis-à- vis ordinary prose, a legislation differs in its provenance, lay-out and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof.
28. Of the various Rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established Rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 12 have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the Rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not tomorrow's backward adjustment of it. Our belief in the nature of the law is founded on the bed rock that every human being is .
entitled to arrange his affairs by relying on the existing law and should not find that his plans have been retrospectively upset. This principle of law is known as lex prospicit non respicit : law looks forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips vs. Eyre, a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing law.
29. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of 'fairness', which must be the basis of every legal Rule as was observed in the decision reported in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case, we shall refer to few judgments containing this dicta, a little later."
16. A three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 411 has held:-
"5. It is well-settled Rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the Rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 13 selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary .
hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter."
Though this decision has been rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a service matter, however, the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that every Statute or Statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect and amendment of Rule cannot adversely affect the rights of a party pertaining to a process which already stood commenced before amending Rules came into force.
17. A three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. Kuppusamy and another Vs. State of T.N. and others (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 469 has held:-
"3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that since the Government had indicated its intention to amend the relevant Rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the consequential orders passed have to be upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot be countenanced. The relevant Rules, it is admitted, were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are statutory Rules. Statutory Rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the Rules does not mean that the Rule stood obliterated. Till the Rule is amended, the Rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the Rule.::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 14
18. A three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Katikara Chintamani Dora and others Vs. Guntreddi Annamanaidu and others, (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 567 has .
held:-
"50. It is well settled that ordinarily, when the substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action, rights of the parties are decided according to law, as it existed when the action was begun unless the new statute shows a clear intention to vary such rights (Maxwell on Interpretation, 12th Edn. 220). That is to say, in the absence of anything in the Act, to say that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act is passed."
19. Therefore, it is but apparent from the law cited above that amendments are always prospective until and unless the language of the Rule itself envisages that the amendment is sought to be retrospective. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the amendment so incorporated in Sub Rule (4) of Rule 9 (supra) was introduced w.e.f. 4.11.2016. Thus the amendment itself makes it clear that the same is prospective and not retrospective. When the said amendment is prospective and not retrospective it is not understood as to how the auction process which was commenced before incorporation of the said amendment could be said to be governed by the amended Rule. In our considered view, the auction process has to be governed by the Rules which were in vogue when the said process ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 15 was put into motion by way of issuance of advertisement as that is the day when the right stood crystallized on the parties who were eligible to participate in the auction qua the conditions of auction. Therefore, .
the auction in issue is to be governed by the provisions of Sub Rule (4), Rule 9 (supra) as it stood before the amendment which was so carried out w.e.f. 4.11.2016 and the contention of the respondent-Bank that the said bank cannot extend time to the purchaser to deposit amount in excess of three months is ill-founded.
20. Now we will address the second issue as to whether the act of respondents No.2 and 4 of forfeiting the amount so deposited by the petitioner and thereafter subjecting the property to re-auction is arbitrary or not. In our considered view, the impugned acts of respondents No.2 and 4 are arbitrary. This is for the reason that the petitioner had brought it into the notice of respondent Bank on 28.2.2017 that he had funds to pay the entire bid amount to the respondent-bank and that the entire amount shall be paid by the month of April, 2017. Respondent-Bank rather than permitting the petitioner to deposit the balance amount, of course along with interest for the delayed period, went ahead to re-auction the property. Now the re-
auction was slated for the month of May, 2017 i.e. subsequent to the month in which petitioner had assured respondents No.2 and 4 that he ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 16 shall be paying the entire purchase amount to the bank. In this view of the matter, according to us, the act of the respondent-bank forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner and initiating fresh steps for re-
.
auctioning the property in issue is arbitrary. The interest of the bank is to get its money back which it had given by way of loan to original borrower and it is not understood as to how this interest of the bank was being served by on one hand not permitting the petitioner to deposit the auction amount with interest in the month of April, 2017 and further while putting the entire property to re-auction in the month of May, 2017. Incidentally we find in the notice of re-auction even the reserve price is the same as it was in the notice of auction dated 4.11.2016. This demonstrates that impugned acts of the respondent-
bank are flagrantly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed.
Impugned communication dated 18.3.2017, Annexure P-10, and auction notice, Annexure P-13, are quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to deposit the balance purchase amount with respondents No.2 and 4 along with interest as per communication dated 31.12.2016 as calculated upto 30.4.2017 on or before 15.12.2017. In addition, petitioner shall also pay to the said respondents an amount of ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP 17 `2,12,711/- i.e., the amount which had subsequently been incurred as is evident from the affidavit dated 30.6.2017 filed by respondent-bank.
Parties are further directed to thereafter complete the process of sale in .
accordance with law forthwith, including issue of sale certificate. It is clarified that in case balance amount is not deposited by the petitioner as directed by this Court on or before 15.12.2017, then the respondent-
bank shall be at liberty to re-auction the property. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol)
r Acting Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
20th November, 2017
(Guleria)
::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 23:39:04 :::HCHP