IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17359 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.10.2008 G.L. Arora. -----Petitioner Vs. Punjab National Bank and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: The petitioner challenges the auction conducted by Punjab National Bank in favour of respondent No.3 Bhupinder Nagpal. Facts stated are that M/s Super Chemicals had taken a loan from the Bank and for default in payment, the Bank auctioned the property of M/s Super Chemicals on 7.8.2000. The petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs.14,80,000/-. He paid earnest money of Rs.60,000/- being 5% of the reserve price. He failed to pay the balance amount, which led to forfeiture of earnest money and fresh auction was held on 21.6.2002 in favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was the highest bidder for Rs.11,00,000/-. It appears that said auction has been confirmed in favour of respondent No.3 and possession given. Learned counsel for the petitioner also says that respondent No.3 has raised construction on the said plot. C.W.P. No.17359 of 2008 The petitioner made a grievance that his failure to deposit the balance amount was on account of demand of unearned profit by the Estate Officer, which according to the petitioner was a liability of the seller. The petitioner moved an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, raising objection about recovery of unearned profit. The application was dismissed. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioner also made an application for refund of earnest money. The application was dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the unearned profit was illegally demanded from the petitioner, the petitioner was justified in not paying the remaining money and second auction was illegal. The petitioner be given an opportunity to pay the remaining amount now without unearned profit or the earnest money be refunded. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised. The petitioner failed to pay the balance amount and demand of unearned profit - legal or illegal, could be no ground to condone the non-deposit. Second auction was held in 2002 which was never challenged by the petitioner and the auction-purchaser has also raised construction meanwhile. Dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 21, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2