1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1577 OF 2009 Ultra Realtors Private Limited. .. Petitioners Vs Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. .. Respondents -- Ms D.M. Shah for the Petitioners. Mrs. Usha Srivastava i/by Consulta Juris for Respondent No.1. Shri V.R. Dhond i/by Negandhi Shah & Co. for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been filed against the Banks and other private persons, the Petitioners pray that the property in question should be conveyed to them by execution of proper document and the Petitioners be permitted to deposit balance sale consideration and for appointment of Receiver, etc. At the outset, we may notice that there is a serious doubt as to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition and the Petitioners being entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 2. Be that as it may, we may notice that after the Bank had obtained an order in regard to its dues which exceeded Rs. 5,44,34,621/- as on the date of issue of advertisement for sale of the properties belonging to the Debtor. As per this advertisement, property No.1 which is subject matter of the Writ Petition was to be 2 auctioned and details of the properties are as under:- “Description/schedule of property PROPERTY – 1 All that part and parcel of the property consisting of Banquet Hall and Storage on the North West End of the Ground Floor, Chemox House, 7, Barrack Road, Bombay Hospital Lane, Mumbai in Sy. No.1871 of Fort Division, “A” Ward No.3530(1) within the Mumbai Village, Greater Mumbai Taluka and within the Sub-Registration District of Mumbai and Revenue District of Mumbai, having an extent of 2475 sq. ft. with building thereon and bounded. On the North by : Sub Plot No.2 (Belonging to Pratap Dial Das) On the East by : The properties of the Auxiliary Force (India) On the South by : Hospital Lane On the West by : A Forty Foot Road (Barrack Road) Measuring 2475 sq. ft. belonging to Chemox Export Import Pvt. Ltd.” 3. The Petitioners were one of the bidders and ultimately they gave a highest bid of Rs.2.91 crores and Rs.2.18 crores being the referred price. After the bid was accepted, the Petitioners raised some doubts with regard to the premises which has been put for auction. The Bank vide its letter dated 20th June, 2009 replied the Petitioners’ letter. Relevant extract of the letter dated 20th June, 2009 reads as under:- 3 “Dated 20.06.2009 To, Ultra Realtors Private Limited, Regd.with A/D A/507, Adinath Apartments, 281, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Sir, Sub : Auction Sale of Property No.1 under SARFAESI Act as per our Sale Notice dated 24.04.2009 and subsequent auction conducted on 05.06.2009. With reference to the above, we are glad to confirm the sale of the above mentioned property (Banquet Hall and Storage on the North West End of the Ground Floor, Chemox House, 7, Barrack Road, Bombay Hospital Lane, Mumbai having a built up area of 2475 sq. ft. A ..... already remitted Rs.72,75,000/- being the 25% of the bid amount you are requested to remit the balance 75% on the bio amount i.e. Rs.2,18,25,000/- within 15 days from today. If you fail to remit the said amount the amount remitted already will get forfeited and the property will be resold. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Authorized Officer.” 4. As is evident from the above letter, the Petitioners were granted 15 days time to deposit entire sale consideration of Rs. 2.91crores within 15 days. It is not disputed before us that the balance money has not been deposited till today. The contention raised before us is that as per the advertisement not only Banquet 4 Hall and Storage on the Ground Floor was sought to be sold but the entire building was to be sold which consisted 1 + 6 storey. This claim raised now is the figment of imagination of the Petitioners. There is nothing on record to show even remotely that the auction was for the entire building and not for the portion specified therein. On the contrary, the Bank vide its letter dated 20th June, 2009 had even given clear indication by saying that only a built up area of 2475 sq. ft. was being put to auction. 5. We may also notice that during the pendency, the Borrower took advantage of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act and paid the sum more than six crores under the One Time Settlement Scheme to the Bank and thus the property was released in favour of the Borrower. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, sale was confirmed vide letter dated 20th June, 2009. This argument is again misconceived. It was confirmation of acceptance of bid and not confirmation of sale. Sale could be confirmed in favour of the Petitioners only when the balance price is paid and sale certificate/sale deed was duly executed in favour of the Petitioners. The Debtor has taken benefit of the statutory provisions and we are unable to say that the settlement should be cancelled and not only the property put to auction but the entire property (consisting of 1 + 6 storey building ) should be conveyed. The 5 submission of the Petitioners therefore is unsustainable in fact and in law and suffers from absurdity of claim. 6. We may note here that we have asked the Petitioners whether they are interested in getting interest with costs to which they declined. There is no merit in this Writ Petition. The Petition therefore stands dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J