IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5912 of 2009 Date of decision: April 21, 2009. M/s Gupta Gas Services & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Bank of Baroda, GT Road, Phagawara ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rohit Suri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for caveator-respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners seek quashing of the possession and sale notices dated 12.3.2009 and 20.3.2009 (Annexures P-3 & P-4) as well as the notice dated 2.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby their mortgaged property is sought to be auctioned by the respondent-Bank. The Bank has entered caveat. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. It transpires that the petitioners are liable to pay a sum of over Rs.78 lacs as on 31.12.2008. The mortgaged property is comprising a vacant plot and the respondent-Bank has invited tenders to sell the same with a reserve price of Rs.72 lacs. The petitioners claim that the market value of the aforesaid property is not less than Rs.125 lacs. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank, however, points out that even at the time when the aforesaid property was mortgaged in the year 2006, the value got assessed by the petitioners was Rs.97 lacs and now the value of the property has gone down due to recent recession. The petitioners are always at liberty to bring a prospective and potential customer who might be ready and willing to pay more than the reserved price fixed by the respondent-Bank or which it might receive through the tender notice. In this view of the matter and with a view to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to find out a genuine customer, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the respondent-Bank may continue with the process of sale through tender but the same shall not be confirmed in favour of the highest bidder till 30.6.2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall be at liberty either to pay the entire loan amount and/or bring a buyer who might be ready and willing to pay more than the highest offer received by the Bank. The prospective buyer, if any, to be produced by the petitioners shall be bound by the terms and conditions given in the tender notice and the property shall be sold to him through a tripartite agreement to which the respondent-Bank shall also be a party. Such a buyer shall be bound firstly to pay the earnest money/sale consideration to the respondent-Bank to the extent of its loan liability. It is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to pay the loan amount and/or bring some customer before the cut-off date, the respondent-Bank shall be entitled to confirm the sale in favour of the highest bidder. Dasti. April 21, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge