Bombay High Court
Archana D/O Deepak Wani vs Indian Bank, Thr. Deputy General ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2026:BHC-NAG:2433-DB
Judgment 1 WP7811-2025-1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 7811 OF 2025
Archana D/o. Deepak Wani,
Aged 53 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. 455, Saroj Villa, New Colony,
Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Indian Bank, through its Deputy
General Manager (Recovery),
Recovery Department, 254-260,
Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah,
Chennai - 600014.
2. Indian Bank, through its Deputy
General Manager, Stressed Asset
Management (SAM) Branch,
having office at 73, 7th Floor,
Mittal Chambers, Nariman Point,
400021.
3. M/s. Omkara Assets Reconstruction
Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized
signatory, Office at Kohinoor Square,
47th Floor, N.C. Kelkar Marg, R.G.
Gadkari Chowk, Dadar (West),
Mumbai - 400028.
.... RESPONDENTS.
______________________________________________________________
Shri Vikram Nankani, Sr. Adv. & Shri D.V.Chauhan, Sr. Adv. a/b Shri C.J.
Dhruv a/w Parth Malviya, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri M.V.Samarth, Sr.Adv. a/b Shri A.T.Purohit, Adv a/w Shri T.Y. Sharif,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Shri Pratik Seksaria, Sr.Adv. a/b. Shri Rommill Jain, Adv. for Respondent No.3
______________________________________________________________
Judgment 2 WP7811-2025-1.odt
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J)
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. In the present writ petition a challenge is raised to the e-auction dated 02/12/2025 conducted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and resumed on 03/12/2025, for assignment of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) accounts of M/s. Poonam Resorts Private Limited and M/s. Link House Industries Ltd.
Brief facts of the present case are as under :
4. The petitioner claims to be a shareholder of the principal borrower, namely M/s. Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd., whose account is the subject matter of the impugned e-auction. According to the petitioner, since the investment and interests of the petitioner are directly and substantially affected by the impugned e-auction, she has locus to maintain the present petition.
Judgment 3 WP7811-2025-1.odt
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, the principal borrower M/s.Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd. approached the respondent-Bank for grant of term loan for Rs.62 Crores. The same was approved by the Bank vide sanction letter dated 08/03/2011 and a mortgage was created on the lands in question.
6. On failure of the principal borrower to make payment of the loan amount, the respondent-bank on 31/03/2017 declared the loan account as NPA and took recourse to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act").
7. Thereafter, the respondent-bank proceeded to conduct e- auction and accordingly e-auction notices were issued on 05/11/2025 and 02/12/2025, for assignment/ sale of the NPA accounts of M/s.Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Link House Industries Ltd. to ARCs/ NBFCs/ Fls and Other Banks, scheduled to be held on 02/12/2025.
8. The reserved price fixed for M/s.Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd. was at Rs.80 Crores.
Judgment 4 WP7811-2025-1.odt
9. The auction was accordingly held on 02/12/2025. The respondent No.3 quoted Rs.871 Crores as its bid price. According to respondent No.3, the same was a typographical mistake. The respondent No.3 accordingly informed it to the respondent Bank. Thereupon, the auction was resumed on 03/12/2025 and in the same the highest bid of the respondent No.2 for Rs.87.1 crores was accepted.
10. Hence, this petition, contending that the Bank has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and in a mala fide manner in refusing to finalize the auction at Rs.871 crores and instead seeking to finalize the same at Rs.87.1 crores. Accordingly, a prayer is made for declaring the auction as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and bad in law. Further, a direction is sought to the respondent-bank to finalize the bid of Rs.871 crores.
11. At the outset, Shri Seksaria, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. It is argued that the respondent- bank is not State and further the transaction involved in the present petition is commercial transaction and does not have any public element obligation. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot maintain the writ against the impugned e-auction.
Judgment 5 WP7811-2025-1.odt
12. In reply, Shri Nankani, learned Senior Advocate argues that the respondent-bank is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He submits that since the challenge is raised on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the dispute though falls within the domain of contractual obligations, would not relieve the respondent-bank of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition, as filed by the petitioner, is maintainable. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour ..vs.. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority , reported in (2024) 15 SCC 461.
13. The respondent-bank is not disputing that the respondent-bank is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There is no doubt that the dispute involved in the present petition falls within the domain of contractual obligations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra) had an occasion to consider the scope of judicial review in contractual matters and to consider the concept of 'public law' element. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said judgment has held thus :
Judgment 6 WP7811-2025-1.odt "50. In another decision of this Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. it was held that every action of the State that has some degree of impact on the public interest, can be challenged under writ jurisdiction to the extent that they are arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, irrespective of the fact that the dispute falls within the domain of contractual obligations. It was further held, that it is the nature of a government body's personality which characterises the action as having a public law element, and not the field of law where such action is taken. The relevant observation reads as under: (Shrilekha Vidyarthi case SCC pp. 236-37 & 239, paras 22, 24 & 28) "22. There is an obvious difference in the contracts between private parties and contracts to which the State is a party. Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. It is a different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions.
24. The State cannot be attributed the split personality of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the contractual field so as to impress on it all the characteristics of the State at the threshold while making a contract requiring it to fulfil the obligation of Article 14 of the Constitution and thereafter permitting it to cast off its garb of State to adorn the new robe of a private body during the subsistence of the contract enabling it to act arbitrarily subject only to the contractual obligations and remedies flowing from it. It is really the nature of its personality as State which is significant and must characterise all its actions, in whatever field, and not the nature of function, contractual or otherwise, which is decisive of the nature of scrutiny permitted for examining the validity of its act. The requirement of Article 14 being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably, there is nothing which Judgment 7 WP7811-2025-1.odt militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. There is a basic difference between the acts of the State which must invariably be in public interest and those of a private individual, engaged in similar activities, being primarily for personal gain, which may or may not promote public interest. Viewed in this manner, in which we find no conceptual difficulty or anachronism, we find no reason why the requirement of Article 14 should not extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State activity.
28. Even assuming that it is necessary to import the concept of presence of some public element in a State action to attract Article 14 and permit judicial review, we have no hesitation in saying that the ultimate impact of all actions of the State or a public body being undoubtedly on public interest, the requisite public element for this purpose is present also in contractual matters. We, therefore, find it difficult and unrealistic to exclude the State actions in contractual matters, after the contract has been made, from the purview of judicial review to test its validity on the anvil of Article 14." (emphasis supplied)
14. From the above referred observations, it is evident that the impact of every State action is also on public interest. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. The ultimate impact of all actions of the State or public body being undoubtedly on public interest, requisite public element for this purpose is present also in contractual matters. Therefore, it is difficult and unrealistic to exclude the State actions in contractual matters, after the contract has been made, from the purview of judicial review to test its validity on the anvil of Article 14.
Judgment 8 WP7811-2025-1.odt
15. It is thus, evident that, if any challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act of the State is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, even in the disputes fall within the domain of contractual obligations, it would not be relieved the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. In the circumstances, considering the fact that, in the present matter, the action of the respondent No.1-bank is being challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned e-auction is arbitrary, unfair and malafide, we are of the opinion that the petition is maintainable. Accordingly, the objection raised by the respondent No.3 to the maintainability of this petition is hereby rejected.
16. Shri Seksaria, learned Senior Advocate further raised an objection as regards the locus of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner being the shareholder and the auction was for assignment of NPA accounts with underlying securities and not for auctioning the mortgaged properties, therefore, after successful completion of the auction process, the respondent No.3 on execution of the Assignment Agreement shall step into the shoes of the original vendor i.e. the respondent-bank and only the rights as available to the respondent-bank shall be assigned in favour of the respondent No.3 and hence, no Judgment 9 WP7811-2025-1.odt additional liability will be accrued against the principal borrower or the petitioner. It is therefore, argued that none of the legal rights of the petitioner is being affected by the present auction.
17. It is argued that, the petition can be maintained by a person who is said to be aggrieved. He submits that, the person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. He, therefore submits that, as no legal right of the petitioner is being affected by the impugned e-auction, the petitioner cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person' and therefore, she cannot maintain the present petition. For this purpose he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mani Subrat Jain .. vs.. State of Haryana, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486 and in the case of ICICI Bank Limited ..vs.. Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. & Ors . reported in (2010) 10 SCC 1.
18. Shri Nankani, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner opposed the said objection and submits that, the petitioner is not only the shareholder but she is also a guarantor. He fairly admits that, although it has been pleaded that, the petitioner is a shareholder and there is no Judgment 10 WP7811-2025-1.odt specific averment that she is a guarantor, in fact, she is a guarantor too. He submits that, she being a guarantor, she has every right to raise a challenge to the e-auction or any illegal act of the bank. He, therefore, submits that the objection is misconceived and liable to be rejected.
19. Admittedly, in the body of the petition, nowhere the petitioner has stated that she is a guarantor in the loan transaction in question. The averments in the petition show that she is shareholder of the principal borrower.
20. There is no dispute in the matter at hand that the impugned e-auction was for assignment of NPA accounts with underlying securities and not for auctioning the mortgaged properties.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra) has held thus :
"18. ... Even in the matter of assigning debts, it cannot be said that the banks are trading in debts, as held by the High Court(s). The assignor bank has never purchased the debt(s). It has advanced loans against security as part of its banking business. The account of a client in the books of the bank becomes Non Performing Asset when the client fails to repay. In assigning the debts with underlying security, the bank is only transferring its asset and is not acquiring any rights of its client(s). The bank transfers its asset for a particular agreed price and is no longer entitled to recover anything from the borrower(s). The moment ICICI Bank Ltd. transfers the debt with underlying security, the borrower(s) ceases to be the borrower(s) of the ICICI Bank Ltd. and becomes the Judgment 11 WP7811-2025-1.odt borrower(s) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (assignee). At this stage, we wish to once again emphasize that debts are assets of the assignor bank. The High Court(s) has erred in not appreciating that the assignor bank is only transferring its rights under a contract and its own asset, namely, the debt as also the mortgagee's rights in the mortgaged properties without in any manner affecting the rights of the borrower(s)/ mortgagor(s) in the contract or in the assets. ..."
22. Thus, it is evident that in the matter of assigning the debts it cannot be said that the bank is trading in debts. The moment the bank transfers the debts with underlying security, the borrower of the lender bank becomes borrower of the assignee. It is further evident that the debts are assets of the assignor bank and the assignor bank only transfers its right under the contract and its own assets namely the debts as also the mortgagee's right in the mortgaged properties without in any manner affecting the rights of the borrower / mortgagor in the contract or in the assets.
23. Thus, without any element of doubt it is evident that, since in the present matter the e-auction was held for assignment of NPA account with underlying securities no right of the principal borrower or share holder or guarantor is being affected in the contract or in the assets.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mani Subrat Jain (supra) has observed thus:
Judgment 12 WP7811-2025-1.odt "9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. I, paragraph 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha'; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ferris: Extraordinary Legal Remedies, paragraph 198.)"
25. It is evident from the above referred observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a person can be said to be aggrieved only when the person is denied legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something.
26. In the present matter, as no legal right of the petitioner has been taken away or adversely affected, the petitioner cannot be said to be an "aggrieved person" so as to maintain the petition. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, whether in a capacity of a shareholder or a guarantor, lacks locus standi to maintain the present petition for the aforesaid reasons.
27. Though we have held and observed that, the petitioner has no locus and she cannot maintain the petition, we think it fit to examine the challenge on merit also.
Judgment 13 WP7811-2025-1.odt
28. On perusal of the record it is evident that the reserved price fixed for M/s. Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.80 Crores. This auction for assignment / sale of the NPA account of M/s. Poonam Resorts Pvt.
Ltd. was held on 02/12/2025. The respondent No.3 quoted Rs.871 crores as its bid price and thereafter immediately he informed the respondent-bank that due to human error one zero was added whereas, the respondent No.3 was intended to quote Rs.87.1 crores and not Rs.871 crores. Thereupon, the auction was resumed on next day i.e. 03/12/2025 in which the respondent No.3 quoted Rs.87.1 crores and since no other bidder participated despite the notice, the respondent No.3 was declared as highest bidder with a bid of Rs.87.1 crores.
29. Shri Nankani, learned Senior Advocate argues that as per the tender condition, more particularly condition No.14, the bank has reserved its right either to accept the bid or reject the same in its sole discretion. It is submitted that the bank is not an adjudicator to decide whether the amount quoted i.e. Rs.871 crores by the respondent No.3 is due to human error or typographical mistake. It is contended that the respondent-bank has acted in contravention of the terms and conditions of the tender by accepting the request of respondent No. 3 to discard the bid amount of Rs. 871 crores quoted by it. It is submitted that the bank Judgment 14 WP7811-2025-1.odt was under an obligation to accept the highest bid, and since the same was not accepted, the entire auction process stands vitiated.
30. It is submitted that as per the instructions issued for quoting the price during e-auction, the clear instructions were issued to the effect that clicking on "Bid", the System will prompt for a confirmation twice time on placed bid. If the placed amount is correct then click on "Yes". If placed amount want to change before submit the bid, then click on "No".
31. It is argued that the said instructions adequately indicate that a chance was given to every bidder to correct the mistake, if any, while quoting the amount. It is argued that the amount quoted by Respondent No.3, even after being afforded an opportunity to correct any alleged mistake, clearly indicates that the said amount was quoted with due deliberation and conscious application of mind. It is argued that the bank has committed an error in not accepting the bid of Rs.871 crores quoted by the respondent No.3.
32. It is argued that acceptance of the explanation offered by the respondent No.3 in quoting Rs.871 crores by the bank is nothing but a case for favouritism. It is therefore, argued that the respondent-bank shall be directed to accept the bid of the respondent No.3 to the tune of Rs.871.
Judgment 15 WP7811-2025-1.odt
33. Per contra, Shri Samarth, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-bank argues that as per the tender condition, permissible minimum increment was of Rs.10 lakhs and it is apparent that, after the last offer of Rs.87 crores, the increment could be of Rs.10 lakhs. Thus, the case of the respondent No.3 that, it was intending to quote Rs.87.10 crores, is justifiable and accordingly such mistake is accepted and the auction was resumed on 03/12/2025. It is submitted that the mistake is so apparent that denial to accept such mistake would have amounted to acting unreasonably. It is submitted that with complete fairness such mistake was accepted by the bank and the auction was resumed. He, therefore, submits that the allegation of favouritism is baseless.
34. It is argued that, the discretion of the bank either to accept or reject the bid is not in the context as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The mistake was so apparent that adjudication is not required and if there is a discretion and if it was exercised in the judicious manner, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner should not raise any grievance about the same. He, therefore, argues that, there is no illegality or perversity committed in accepting the mistake committed by the respondent No.3 in quoting Rs.871 crores and resuming the auction on next day and accepting the highest bid quoted Judgment 16 WP7811-2025-1.odt by the petitioner as Rs.87.1 crores. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
35. Shri Seksaria, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3-the successful bidder, reiterates the submissions of the learned counsel for the bank and in addition he has drawn attention of this Court to the bid history. He has pointed out the bid history in light of the condition of increment which permits the increment by Rs.10 lakhs. He has pointed out the first amount offered by the respondent No.3 was Rs.80 crores and then up to 56 th attempt it was increased mostly by Rs.10 lakhs and at some time it was increased up to Rs.40 lakhs. It is pointed out that from the attempt 31 onwards up to 56 th attempt the amount was increased by Rs.10 lakhs and at 57 th attempt when the respondent No.3 offered its bid, the respondent No.3 wanted to increase it by Rs.10 lakhs, however, because of an additional zero it became the offer of Rs.871 crores. It is submitted that the moment it was noticed, without wasting a single moment, an e-mail was issued pointing out such mistake. It is therefore, submitted that it was not a conscious decision to quote Rs.871 crores. He, therefore, submits that there is no error committed by the bank in accepting the bid of the respondent No.3 for Rs.87.1 crores.
Judgment 17 WP7811-2025-1.odt
36. Having considered the rival contentions and perusal of the record, it is evident that, as observed herein above, the reserved price fixed for M/s.Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.80 Crores. The increment as per the conditions of the tender was minimum Rs.10 lakhs. The case of the respondent No.3 is that in the 56th attempt a bidder CFM ARC offered Rs.87 crores and as the respondent No.3 wanted to increase the amount by Rs.10 lakhs, the price was accordingly quoted. However, due to a human error, an additional zero was inadvertently added, and consequently, the amount was reflected as Rs. 871 crores.
37. In order to appreciate whether this was indeed a human error, it would be appropriate and necessary to reproduce the bid history, which is as follows:
BID HISTORY Sr. No. Name of the Copmany Bid amount Bid date and time 1 OMKARA ARC 80,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 15:54:54.773 2 CFM ARC 80,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 15:57:55.060 3 OMKARA ARC 80,20,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:00:37.223 4 CFM ARC 80,30,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:04:11.680 5 OMKARA ARC 80,40,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:05:28.863 6 CFM ARC 80,50,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:07:22.757 Judgment 18 WP7811-2025-1.odt 7 OMKARA ARC 80,60,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:10:25.430 8 CFM ARC 80,70,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:11:11.697 9 OMKARA ARC 80,80,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:13:15.317 10 CFM ARC 80,90,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:14:54.643 11 OMKARA ARC 81,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:15:59.080 12 CFM ARC 81,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:17:36.530 13 OMKARA ARC 81,20,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:18:54.327 14 CFM ARC 81,30,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:22:23.287 15 OMKARA ARC 81,40,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:23:32.243 16 CFM ARC 81,50,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:27:33.740 17 OMKARA ARC 81,60,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:28:13.400 18 CFM ARC 81,70,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:32:31.107 19 OMKARA ARC 81,80,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:33:49.683 20 CFM ARC 81,90,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:36:11.500 21 OMKARA ARC 82,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:36:43.323 22 CFM ARC 82,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:39:02.893 23 OMKARA ARC 82,20,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:39:46.830 24 CFM ARC 82,30,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:43:10.090 25 OMKARA ARC 82,50,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:43:40.247 26 CFM ARC 82,60,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:46:38.890 27 OMKARA ARC 83,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:47:22.317 28 CFM ARC 83,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:50:40.333 29 OMKARA ARC 83,30,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:51:24.700 30 CFM ARC 83,40,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:55:03.667 Judgment 19 WP7811-2025-1.odt 31 OMKARA ARC 83,70,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:56:02.277 32 CFM ARC 83,80,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 16:59:47.757 33 OMKARA ARC 84,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:00:41.530 34 CFM ARC 84,20,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:03:39.037 35 OMKARA ARC 84,30,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:04:13.987 36 CFM ARC 84,40,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:06:12.973 37 OMKARA ARC 84,70,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:06:53.897 38 CFM ARC 84,80,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:08:44.263 39 OMKARA ARC 85,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:09:17.620 40 CFM ARC 85,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:12:53.390 41 OMKARA ARC 85,50,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:13:18.543 42 CFM ARC 85,60,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:16:20.880 43 OMKARA ARC 85,70,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:16:47.603 44 CFM ARC 85,80,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:17:30.680 45 OMKARA ARC 85,90,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:18:31.430 46 CFM ARC 86,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:21:00.200 47 OMKARA ARC 86,10,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:22:02.240 48 CFM ARC 86,20,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:25:40.660 49 OMKARA ARC 86,30,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:26:17.033 50 CFM ARC 86,40,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:29:02.477 51 OMKARA ARC 86,50,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:29:52.747 52 CFM ARC 86,60,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:31:51.713 53 OMKARA ARC 86,70,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:32:43.340 54 CFM ARC 86,80,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:35:11.607 Judgment 20 WP7811-2025-1.odt 55 OMKARA ARC 86,90,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:38:10.237 56 CFM ARC 87,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:40:51.673 57 OMKARA ARC 8,71,00,00,000.00 02/12/2025 ([email protected]) 17:45:23.563
38. It is evident that up to the 24 th attempt, the amount was increased by Rs.10 lakhs on each occasion. At the 25 th and 39th attempts, the increase was Rs.20 lakhs. At the 27 th and 41st attempts, the increase was Rs.40 lakhs. At the 31st, 33rd, and 37th attempts, the increase was Rs.30 lakhs. In all the remaining attempts, the amount was consistently increased by ₹10 lakhs.
39. Furthermore, it is evident that the amount quoted was not in the manner, namely 'Rs.87 crores' or 'Rs.87.1 crores', but it was quoted as "Rs.8,71,00,00,000.00". Considering the number of zeros involved and the manner in which the amount was quoted, the mistake of inserting one additional zero due to human error cannot be ruled out.
40. The amount quoted at 56th attempt was at 17:40:51.673 hrs., whereas, the amount quoted at 57th attempt i.e. Rs.871 crores was at 17:45:23.563 hrs. i.e. even in less than five minutes. Thus, there is every likelihood of commission of human error in such situation, of adding one Judgment 21 WP7811-2025-1.odt additional zero and could not be noticing such mistake despite there was a chance made available for correction.
41. Having observed so, we are of the considered view that the amount quoted by the respondent No.3 to the tune of Rs.871 crores is due to human error and typographical mistake in putting additional zero.
42. As observed by this Court that the reserved price fixed for M/s. Poonam Resorts Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.80 crores and therefore, it is unlikely that a bidder would directly jumped to Rs.870 crores from the amount of Rs.87 crores which was the last bid. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that, this was because the valuation of the property is worth more than Rs.900 crores. It is to be noted that there is no prayer made to set aside the auction for fixing the reserved price at the lowest rate. Moreover, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that, on 3rd December 2025 after the auction was resumed, no bidder participated and gave any further offer above Rs.87.1 crores. On the contrary, the other bidder informed the respondent-bank that it does not want to give further offer above the offer given by the respondent No.3, to the tune of Rs.87.1 crores.
Judgment 22 WP7811-2025-1.odt
43. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are of the considered opinion that the Bank has not committed any error in accepting the bid of respondent No.3 for an amount of Rs.87.1 crores. The present petition, therefore, fails not only on the ground of locus standi but also on merits. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
( RAJ D. WAKODE, J ) (ANIL S. KILOR, J )
RRaut..
Signed by: Raut (RR)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2026 20:24:16