Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. In the meanwhile, respondent/SBI had issued e- auction sale notice on 12.07.2018 proposing auction sale of schedule properties on 27.08.2018.

21. In I.A.No.3968 of 2018 petitioner sought for stay of auction during pendency of S.A.No.275 of 2018. Tribunal passed a conditional order on 24.08.2018 declining to interfere with the auction sale. But respondent/SBI was directed not to register the sale certificate in favour of the successful bidder in the auction sale subject to the petitioner depositing 30% of the total outstanding dues in two equal installments ---first installment of 15% to be deposited within a week and the second installment of 15% was directed to be deposited within two weeks after deposit of the first installment directly with the respondent/SBI. It was clarified that if there was non-compliance to the above conditions, the conditional stay order would stand vacated and respondent/SBI would be at liberty to register the sale certificate in favour of the successful bidder which would however be subject to outcome of S.A.No.275 of 2018.

25. However, this time also the auction sale scheduled on 16.11.2018 did not materialize for want of bidders.

26. Respondent/SBI issued another e-auction sale notice dated 10.12.2018 scheduling auction sale of schedule properties on 31.12.2018. This time petitioner filed I.A.No.6263 of 2018 in S.A.No.275 of 2018 for stay of auction scheduled on 31.12.2018. Tribunal passed a conditional order on 28.12.2018, like the previous order dated 24.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.3968 of 2018.

27. Like all previous auctions, this time also the auction sale scheduled on 31.12.2018 did not fructify as there were no bidders.

28. However, as alluded to hereinabove, on 1.12.2018 petitioner paid Rs.25,00,000.00 by way of cheque which was encashed by the respondent/SBI on 15.02.2019.

29. Respondent/SBI issued fresh e-auction sale notice on 17.01.2019 proposing to hold auction sale of schedule properties on 04.02.2019. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.427 of 2019 in S.A.No.275 of 2018 seeking stay of the auction scheduled on 04.02.2019. Like on the previous occasions, Tribunal passed a conditional stay order on 01.02.2019. While declining to stay the auction scheduled on 04.02.2019, respondent/SBI was directed not to register the sale certificate that may be issued in favour of the highest bidder in the auction, subject to petitioner depositing 30% of the total outstanding dues in two equal installments---first installment of 15% to be deposited within two weeks and the second installment of 15% to be deposited within two weeks of deposit of the first installment directly with the respondent/SBI. It was clarified that in the event of non- compliance to any of the above conditions, respondent/SBI would be at liberty to register the sale certificate in favour of the highest bidder.

63. In the light of the above discussion, issue No.3 is answered against the petitioner.

64. This brings us to the fourth issue i.e., ISSUE NO.4:-

Is there any suppression of material facts by the petitioner? And if so, whether the same would disentitle the petitioner to any relief from the Writ Court?

65. We have already noted that there is serious suppression of material facts by the petitioner. Petitioner has not mentioned about filing of S.A.No.275 of 2018 as well as I.A.Nos.3968 of 2018, 6263 of 2018 and 427 of 2019 in the said securitization application. Petitioner has also not mentioned about the conditional stay orders passed by the Tribunal in the said I.As on 24.08.2018, 28.12.2018 and 01.02.2019 as well as the fact that it has not complied with the conditions imposed by the Tribunal in those orders. Further, petitioner has not mentioned about filing of W.P.Nos.22775 of 2018, 31208 of 2018, 39508 of 2018 and 13873 of 2019 which were all dismissed by this Court.