Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. os wpl.3880-20.doc favour of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being declared as the highest / successful bidder in the e-auction conducted by Respondent No.2 Bank. Petitioner is the second highest bidder.

4. Petitioner has challenged the bidding process as being compromised by Respondent No.2 Bank in collusion and connivance with Respondent Nos.3 and 4 resultantly denying the Petitioner an opportunity to better the highest bid and has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

5.2. Petitioner, represented by her brother namely Ujwal Agarwal, filled in the physical form on 14 September 2020 to participate in the e-auction and on 15 September 2020 deposited the EMD of Rs.85,00,000.00 with Respondent No.2 Bank.

2 of 24

3. os wpl.3880-20.doc 5.3. 12 bids were initially received out of which 4 bids were rejected.

5.4. According to the Petitioner on 15 September 2020, while the bidding process was taking place online, the system stopped functioning at 17:57 hrs. At that time, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who had jointly bid Rs.9,23,00,000.00 was the highest bidder and the Petitioner who had bid Rs.9,22,00,000.00 was the second highest bidder. Petitioner desired to better the bid of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 but because of the system malfunction, Petitioner could not do so.

7.4. Respondent Bank submitted that allegation of system becoming non-functional on 15 September 2020 at 17:57 hours was incorrect and false as confirmed by E-procurement Technologies Ltd which managed the auction portal namely Auction Tiger. That due process of law as contemplated by SARFAESI Act and rules framed thereunder was duly followed by the Bank in the present case.

11 of 24

3. os wpl.3880-20.doc 7.5. Attention was drawn to the Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Century 21 Town Planners Pvt Ltd Vs. J.M. Finance Assets Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd .& Ors.5. Respondent submitted that in an identical situation, a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy being available to the Petitioner for approaching DRT under SARFAESI Act wherein the Petitioner was the second highest bidder. While referring to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & Ors. 6 , the Court held that in view of the wide scope of Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, the only remedy available to such a Petitioner would be to approach the DRT by filing an appropriate application as the said provision namely the expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) took within its fold not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the Act. The relevant paragraph Nos. 18 to 20 of the said judgment read thus:-

20. There is no collusion between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 as alleged by the petitioner. It is only on account of the stay order passed by the DRT, Jabalpur the balance amount was not accepted by the respondent No.1. On the date of auction, the petitioner was free to bid and once the respondent No.2 who was highest bidder was declared as successful bidder and deposited 25% of the amount on the same date, now it is too late for the petitioner to revise his offer or pay for sale of the property in question for a consideration of Rs.237.50 Crore, that too after a period of more than one year from the date of confirmation of the sale and now at this stage, he has no locus to increase offer of the bid in this writ proceeding, which was already concluded on 31.3.2017. The respondent No.2 being highest bidder, his highest bid was accepted by the respondent No.1 in presence of the petitioner. No body ever objected including the writ petitioner at that stage on any ground whatsoever, such as, that there was any irregularity in the sale nor was any objection from any one of them that the price offered by the respondent No.2 was inadequate. The Apex Court in the case of Vedica Procon Private Ltd. V/s. Balleshwar Greens Pvt. Ltd & Ors. reported as (2015) 10 SCC 94 has decided the similar issue and held that in the absence of any legal tenable ground for not confirming the sale, it cannot be declined to the appellant therein as no subsequent higher offer can constitute a valid ground for refusing confirmation of the sale or offer already made. In the case of Vedica Procon Private Ltd. V/s. Balleshwar Greens Pvt. Ltd & Ors. (supra), the highest bid of the appellant therein was accepted by the Company Court and all the stake-holders of the company in liquidation were heard before such an acceptance. Nobody ever objected including the first respondent who was second highest bidder at that stage on any ground whatsoever, such as, that there was any fraud or irregularity in the sale nor 13 of 24