IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1559 of 2010() -------------------- JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 5299/2006 DATED 14/07/2010 ............................................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER : ------------------------------------- M/S.ORANGE GROUP OF COMPANIES, BLUE DIAMOND BUILDINGS, BYE PASS JUNCTION, MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-670 027, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.ESHAQUE, S/O.EBRAHIM HAJEE. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI. NIRMAL S. RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, K.S.H.B.BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, KOZHIKODE – 673 015. 3. M/S.KALPA OIL MILLS, 9/596, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE– 673 015. 4. JEHANGIR GOPAL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KALPA OIL MILLS, 18 MARINE GATE APARTMENTS, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 5. SHEELA JEHANGIR @ M.A.SHEELA, W/O.JAHANGIR GOPAL, 18 MARINE GATE APARTMENTS, CORPORATION OFFICE ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032. WA.No. 1559 of 2010 -2- 6. P.SHANTHA KUMARI, W/O.LATE P.GOPAL, BHARGAVI BHAVAN, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 503. 7. D.AJITH, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007. 8. D.ANITHA, D/O.DHARMARAJAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695017. 9. K.N.RAZIA, D/O.AMMED, KIZHAKKE NARANGOLI, KODIYOORA P.O., VELLIYODE, VADAGARA, KOZHIKODE – 673 101. 10.THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI – 341 022. R3 TO R7 BY ADV. C.S. MANU R10 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. BY ADV. P.B. KRISHNAN BY ADV. A.V. THOMAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------- W.A No.1559 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for 2nd respondent who took notice on admission. 2. Appellant was the bidder for property sold in recovery proceedings by the 1st respondent. The case of the appellant is that being the highest bidder the property should have been sold to him. According to him, 25% was payable on the date of sale i.e. 3.2.2006. Even though the appellant went to make the payment, he was prevented from making the payment on account of the CBI raid that was going on in the office of the 1st respondent. Appellant's case that he offered the balance amount through demand draft before the 1st respondent on the following working day. However, the 1st respondent W.A No.1559 of 2010 2 declined to receive the amount for the reason that on account of non-payment of amount in time, sale was cancelled. The appellant approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the action of the Recovery Officer which was rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, against which the writ petition was filed . Though this Court had granted stay against sale of the property on filing the writ petition, the stay was later vacated in July 2006. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that property was thereafter sold by the Bank in Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) proceedings through an agency appointed by them. 3. In view of sale of property, the specific relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and receive the amount paid by him. It is this judgment, the writ appeal is filed for a declaration that W.A No.1559 of 2010 3 since loss is caused to the appellant by 1st respondent along with CBI, this Court should grant relief. 4. The main grievance of the appellant is that he was not allowed to purchase the property even though he was the highest bidder and he had offered the payment on time. However, since the property was sold thereafter the appellant cannot be granted the specific relief sought for by him i.e. a direction to the Recovery Officer to convey the property to him. So, relief, if any, against respondents should be claimed by way of compensation for which appellant is free to file a suit, if the same is maintainable. Even though the counsel for appellant submitted that this court can grant relief by way of compensation, we do not think this is a fit case to consider the same because evidence is required, to be taken to consider the claim, if at all maintainable. 5. However, there will be a direction to the Recovery Officer to refund the amount deposited by the appellant immediately and if it is retained in any account, W.A No.1559 of 2010 4 in which interest has accrued, the interest also should be released to the appellant. The writ appeal is accordingly closed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE ma