IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2448 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20097/2009 Dated 07/10/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.V. GOUTHAMAN, S/O. VELANDY.N, AGED 54 YEARS, NADIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, KAHIMBRAM.P.O, THRISSUR - 680 668. 2. SHERLY DINESH, W/O.P.B. DINESH, AGED 32 YEARS, PANAKKAL HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH.P.O, THRISSUR. 3. K.R. BABU RAJENDRAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN.K.R, AGED 57 YEARS, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHESWARI, W/O. SOMASUNDARAM, AGED 50 YEARS, MUVALAKAPUDUR KALAM, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. GOVARDHANAGIRI, S/O. MUTHU KRISHNAWAMY KOUNDER, AGED 46 YEARS, GOPALAPURAM, MANNUR.P.O, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 3. THANKARAJ, S/O. KALIYAPPA KOUNDER, AGED 49 YEARS, GOPALAPURAM, MANNUR TALUK, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 4. MOHANDAS, S/O. VELUSWAMY KOUNDER, AGED 42 YEARS, GOPALAPURAM, MANNUR POST, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 5. INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, CIRCLE OFFICE, P.B. NO. 3575, 38/1672-B & C, CHITTOOR ROAD, PULLAPPADY JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682 035. 6. INDIAN BANK, VADAKARPATHY BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, VADAKARAPATHY, PALAKKAD. 7. M. ARMUGHA SUNDARAM, S/O. MUTHUSWAMY KOUNDER, AGED 53 YEARS, GOPALAPURAM KALAM, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. K.P. DANDAPANI(SR.) SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN. R5 & R6 BY BY ADV. SRI. S. ESWARAN, SCY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2448 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order dated October 7, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition filed by the contesting respondents herein, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. In a SARFAESI proceedings, the coconut plantation measuring 32.46 Acres was sold in auction for a paltry sum of Rs.91 lakhs to the sole bidder, namely the appellant herein. According to the writ petitioners, even though the value of the property is around Rs.3 to 4 Crores and also the total liability is Rs.1.6 Crores, the auction sale is made in favour of the appellant for Rs.91 lakhs which is not only disproportionate to the value but also suspicious. 3. The learned Single Judge has doubted the sale made in favour of the appellant. Moreover, considering the fact that as the loanee themselves have come forward to deposit WA No.2448 of 2009 -:2:- Rs.91 lakhs, the learned Single Judge directed the Bank to accept the sum of Rs.91 lakhs offered by the writ petitioners. It is also to be noted that as per requirement of the bank, the writ petitioners also undertook to pay the remaining balance of the loan account. Aggrieved by this judgment, the auction purchaser has come out by filing this appeal. 4. At the outset it is to be noted that the auction purchaser/appellant has no absolute right to challenge the arrangement and order of the learned Single Judge, especially when the Bank itself has no grievance. Merely because he participated in the auction, as a sole bidder, it will not give him any right to insist upon sale should be in his favour especially when the learned Single Judge has gone in depth about the entire transaction and found that the same appears to be a shady one, especially when according to the learned Single Judge, the sale was not properly held. 5. On going through the records and the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any illegality or WA No.2448 of 2009 -:3:- irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence we find that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb