The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37356 of 2023 Md. Kayes …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Sumit Kumar Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Regional Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, Bank of Baroda, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. Gurudutta Kar, Advocate (for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate (for Intervenor) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 20.08.2025 14. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). The petitioner is the successful highest bidder in the auction conducted by the opposite parties–Bank of the property in subject. E-auction sale notice was published in the newspaper “Prameya” on 16.08.2019. The petitioner on 20.08.2018 deposited Rs.63,800/- as EMD amount and participated in the e-auction held on Page 1 of 6 17.09.2019. He was declared as successful highest bidder for the property at a bid price of Rs.6,58,000/-. He made good the entire payment as per the e-auction stipulations. On 25.11.2019, sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. However, since the bank failed to take appropriate steps to handover the physical possession of the property in subject, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition inter alia praying the following relief:- “The Petitioner therefore prays that your lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records from the Opp. Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to issued writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus directing Opp. Parties-Bank to give physical possession of the auctioned property as well as to register the same in favour of the petitioner as he is the successful auction purchaser and has paid the entire bid amount since long, for the interest of justice and equity.” When the matter was taken up for hearing on 08.08.2024, directions were issued to the opposite parties-bank to take steps with the help of the local police for taking over the possession of the land and in turn handover the possession to the petitioner. Subsequently, the matter was again called up on 31.08.2024, directions were issued to the opposite parties for ensuring the handing over the possession. Page 2 of 6 Similar directions were made on 26.11.2024, 06.02.2025 and 18.06.2025. Despite repeated directions of this Court and assurance by the opposite parties, the possession of the auctioned property could not be handed over to the petitioner. Meanwhile, one Karur Vysya Bank has filed intervention application being I.A. No.11017 of 2025. In the said application, it is contended by the intervenor that the charge on the said property has been created in favour of the intervenor-bank. It is also contended that a fraud has been played in the entire process, which led to the auction sale. At this juncture, the petitioner realized that the entire auction sale has now marred by litigations. Hence, on 07.08.2025, the petitioner filed an affidavit inter alia praying that he is no more interested in the property rather he would prefer that the bank should refund his entire auction amount with interest. The affidavit reads as under:- “2. That, I had filed the aforementioned writ petition praying inter-alia for a direction to the Opp. Parties/ Bank to give physical possession of the auctioned property as well as register the same in my favour being the successful auction purchaser, as I have paid the entire bid amount/ sale price since 2019. 3. That, during pendency of the instant Writ petition an Intervention application has been Page 3 of 6 filed by an proposed Intervenor i.e. Karur Vysya Bank claiming a charge over the auctioned property. 4. That, owing to the aforesaid fact and the inter-se dispute between the two financial institutions i.e. the Opp. Parties/Bank and the proposed Intervener/ Bank, I do not want to proceed any further in this case and want to take back amount paid by me with interest and for which I hereby humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court to direct the Opp. Parties/ Bank i.e. Bank of Baroda to refund the entire bid amount/ sale price i.e. Rs.6,58,000/- which I have paid with 7% interest p.a. from the date of deposit of the same with the Opp. Parties/ Bank till the date of actual payment to me and for act of kindness I in duty bound shall ever pray.” When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed on 29.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No.4004 of 2022 (Bibhuranjan Parida vrs. AO, PNB, BBSR and others). Confronted with similar situation, the petitioner in that case had also sought for refund of the auction money. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- “7. In that view of the matter, this Court directs the opposite party-bank to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner, i.e., Rs.3,36,89,000.00 (rupees three crore thirty six thousand) lakhs eight nigh forthwith along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the Page 4 of 6 actual payment is made. On receipt of the above amount, the claim of the auction purchaser shall be settled.” By relying upon the said order, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the similar line, the total amount of Rs.6,58,000/- already deposited with the bank may be directed to be refunded to the petitioner. The prayer made by the petitioner deserves merit in view of the development unfolded in the present case. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The opposite parties-bank is directed to refund the entire bid amount of the sale price i.e. Rs.6,58,000/- (rupees six lakhs fifty thousand) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment to the petitioner, the auction purchaser. The opposite parties-bank shall do well to see that this part of the order is complied with within four weeks from today. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case. The intervenor and the opposite parties-bank are at liberty to resort to the remedies available to them under law. Page 5 of 6 With this observation and direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (S.S. Mishra) Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Aug-2025 17:06:17 Page 6 of 6