1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.8576 OF2021(GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. RIMA TRANSFORMERS AND CONDUCTORS PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. DIWAKAR M. SHETTY, R/AT No.18, R.V. LAYOUT, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI.MANJUNATH.K.V, ADVOCATE) AND: CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, SME PEENYA BRANCH, 6TH MAIN, PEENYA2D STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 056. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.S.NAGANAND, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI.HEMANTH RAO, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AUCTION OF E-AUCTION SCHEDULED ON2904.2021 PUBLISHED IN KANNADA DAILY KANNADA PRABHA DAILY DATED2703.2021 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
S ON0811.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question action of the respondent/Canara Bank (‘the Bank’ for short) in notifying conduct of e-auction on 29-04-2021, further communication dated 23-03-2021 whereby the Bank withdraws One Time Settlement (‘OTS’) that was offered and has also sought for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to accept OTS.
2. The facts adumbrated in the petition are as follows: The petitioner is a private limited Company in the name and style of 'M/s Rima Transformers and Conductors Private Limited', incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Managing Director of the Company will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. The petitioner approaches the respondent/Bank for availing credit facility. The total loan that was availed by the 3 petitioner was Rs.18 crores. The installments towards loan not having been made at regular intervals as was necessary, the account of the petitioner slipped into becoming a Non-Performing Asset (‘NPA’). Negotiations were held between the petitioner and the Bank.
3. The Bank after issuance of a notice to the petitioner indicating that he has been in huge default in payment of installments, initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). Again a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 22-03-2019 seeking to take symbolic possession of the properties of the petitioner mortgaged with the secured creditor i.e., the Bank. It is then the petitioner and the respondent began to talk about settlement and OTS comes to be offered by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent/Bank. The first offer of OTS was accepted by the Bank on 28-08-2019 indicating certain amount in the communication. This was replied to again by the petitioner 4 accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 28-08-2019 which directed payment of certain amount.
4. On 28-08-2019 a sum of Rs.18/- crores was the amount that ought to have been paid by the petitioner in terms of the settlement. There was a little delay of 3 months in executing the same. Later, with the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the Bank itself extends OTS to the petitioner and directs that the petitioner has to pay the entire amount on or before 28-02-2021. The petitioner was also permitted to sell the property that was mortgaged with the Bank, as the petitioner had a potential buyer of the said property. The property was sold by the petitioner and Rs.18.90 crores was deposited to the Bank towards the account. What remained, as claimed, was certain amount of interest to be paid upon the said amount. The outstanding amount, as claimed by the respondent was in total Rs.19.22 crores. The petitioner on 28-02-2021 itself deposited Rs.19/- crores. What comes about is not closure of entire proceedings. The Bank by its communication dated 23-03- 2021, on the ground that the petitioner has not paid entire amount in full, withdraws OTS and cancels the offer extended. Not stopping 5 at that, the other properties of the petitioner were put to sale by issuance of a paper publication indicating that e-auction would be conducted on 29-04-2021. It is at that juncture the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court, in the subject petition.
5. The petition having been entertained, an interim order of stay of the auction and all further proceedings was granted by this Court. The interim order so granted was solely on the ground that the petitioner had not defaulted on OTS but had complied it. At the outset when the petition was filed the conduct of e-auction was not called in question. Later during the pendency of these proceedings an application for amendment is filed raising a challenge to the communication withdrawing OTS. The application for amendment was, on consent, allowed in terms of the order dated 08-11-2022 and the matter was taken up for its final disposal again with the consent of parties. Therefore, the consideration of the prayer is not restricted to the challenge of conduct of e-auction but challenge to the withdrawal of OTS as well. 6
6. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Naganand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek to contend that the petitioner had availed finance and had defaulted in payment of installments to certain extent is not in dispute. The Bank offers OTS for an amount of Rs.18/- crores and sets a dead line to be paid on or before 28-02-2019. The petitioner fulfills not by paying only Rs.18/- crores but by paying Rs.18.90 crores as interest as had been claimed by the Bank. Notwithstanding the receipt of amount which was in complete fulfillment of the offer of OTS, the Bank chose to cancel OTS unilaterally after receiving these amounts. After offering OTS the Bank goes on increasing the amount in the garb of interest. He would contend that on every doctrine of fairness, proportionality and legitimate expectation the action of the respondent/Bank is contrary to law and equity.
8. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent would submit that in the entire petition there is no 7 whisper about cancellation of OTS when it was initially filed. It is only after the objections were filed challenge is now made to the order cancelling OTS. Therefore, interim order is sought by the petitioner by suppressing material fact and as such, he should be non-suited on the ground that he has not come to the Court with clean hands. He would further submit that OTS was no doubt offered and the last date for paying the amount in full in terms of OTS was 28-02-2021. Though the petitioner deposited Rs.18.90 crores towards OTS it was not in full, as interest was yet to be paid. Therefore, exercising the right under the conditions stipulated in OTS offer, the Bank has withdrawn it. No fault can be found with the Bank for further putting other properties of the petitioner for sale being the secured creditor. He would contend that this Court cannot direct the Bank to offer OTS or extend the time stipulated in the OTS. He would place reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court: (i) UNION OF INDIA v. ABN AMRO BANK AND OTHERS – (2013) 16 SCC490 (ii) M/s NITESH RESIDENCY HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – W.P.No.2004 of 2022 decided on 8-08-2022; 8 (iii) STATE BANK OF INDIA v. ARVINDRA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED – 2022 SCC OnLine SC1522 and (iv) THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED v. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTEHRS – 2021 SCC ONLINE SC1255 9. In reply to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the respondent, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would refute to contend that the petitioner did not default in payment of any amount as indicated in the OTS; to the last pie everything including interest had been paid. The Bank goes on increasing the amount of OTS day on day, week on week and month on month. Therefore, the fancy figure is now sought to be projected on the petitioner who has paid every amount by selling his property. He has left with no property now and the Bank wants to put to auction the house of the petitioner in which he is living at present. Therefore, he would submit that actions of the Bank be quashed and a direction be issued to close the account of the petitioner as fully settled. 9
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
11. The afore-narrated fact of the petitioner availing loan with the respondent/Bank is not in dispute. Facts being narrated from the date of the account becoming default and its aftermath would suffice to be noticed. After availing the loan, due to non-payment of installments, the account slips into becoming a NPA. Owing to the said development, the respondent/Bank on 15.11.2018 issues a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act demanding a sum of Rs. 27,22,13,662.02. When no amount was paid to the Bank in terms of the demand, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued by the Bank on 22-03-2019 indicating that it is putting the property to auction. This, the petitioner replies to the Bank requesting for a OTS of the amount. The offer that was made by the petitioner in the communication with regard to the OTS would read as follows: “Taking into account the overall possible realization and the sacrifices which I have made both financially and otherwise for the business and the obligations towards the Government dues, workman and staff and vendors, I am offering a sum of 10 Rs.17,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Crores only) as full and final settlement against the amount advanced to Rima Transformers and Conductors Private Limited and Kalyanai Transport (HUF) and the personal guarantees executed by me and other directors namely Sri Ritesh D Shetty (Managing Director), Smt. Rekha D. Shetty (Director) and Smt. Rima D. Shetty (Director). I am proposing to settle the OTS as under:
1. An amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees one corres twenty five lakhs only) is being remitted by us on 30-03-2019 as a token gesture of goodwill and intention to close the amount on a OTS basis.
2. An amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five corres only) is being remitted by us on or before 31-05-2019.
3. A further amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five crores only) shall be remitted by us on or before 31-07-2019.
4. The residual amount of Rs.5,75,00,000/- (Rupees Five crores Seventy-five lakhs only) shall be remitted by us on or before 30.09.2019. May we request you humbly to keep the amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One crore twenty-five lakhs only) being remitted to-day in an lien account which may be appropriated upon granting us the OTS sanction. These OTS installments would not carry any interest and only upon payment of the entire OTS amount we will seek release of all the mortgage, hypothecation and personal guarantees furnished and available with you. In the peculiar circumstances in which I am placed today coupled with the reasons I have explained above, I seen your sympathetic considerations towards the proposed OTS” (Emphasis added)
11 Two cheques for Rs.45,00,000/- each and a cheque for Rs.35,00,000/- were enclosed to the offer itself as a payment affront towards OTS. The reply was submitted on 29-03-2019 along with cheques. Therefore, the petitioner affront paid Rs.1,25,00,000/- along with the said proposal. The Bank on 30-07-2019 communicates that the offer of Rs.17.50 crores has been forwarded to the authorities and communicates that the petitioner should improve his offer for a fruitful discussion. The petitioner again communicates on 19-06-2019 working out or re- working out the proposal which reads as follows: “We wish to inform that we have already worked out following proposal to comply with OTS as under:
1. We have already deposited Rs.1.25 crores in no lien account.
2. We have deposits amounting Rs.118 lacs with you which was paid as margin money.
3. We shall pay Rs.5.00 crores within 45 days of receiving OTS permission.
4. We shall pay another Rs.5.00 cores within next 75 days.
5. The balance would be paid within 60 days (180 days of first payment) We wish to settle the entire amount within 6 months of receipt of OTS permission from Bank. We once again request you favourably consider OTS on above terms and assure you that we shall promptly comply with OTS. We wish to add that we had improved the OTS offer despite having substantial financial obligations with 12 the sole objective to settle your dues as we very much cherish the good days spent due to your excellent support and good wishes.” (Emphasis added)
This is accepted by the Bank on 28-08-2019. The acceptance reads as follows: “Sub: Rima Transformers and Conductors Pvt.Ltd. – proposal for OTS. With reference to the subject, the proposal for OTS is permitted as under: (a) Accept Rs.1800.00 Lacs towards full and final settlement of dues payable as under: • Rs.500.00 Lacs immediately on conveying the sanction (Rs.125.00 Lacs already paid and kept in no lien account to be adjusted immediately). • Balance amount of Rs.1300.00 Lacs payable before 27-02-2020. • The OTS shall carry interest at MCLR (1 year prevailing on 1-04-2019 i.e., 8.65%) + 1.50% i.e., 10.15% (Simple) on reducing balance till payment of the entire OTS amount, after three months from the sanction date. (b) Post dated cheque for OTS amount to be submitted by the Company to the branch. (c) Release of documents/title deeds of securities charged to the Bank only on receipt of the entire compromise amount. 13 (d) In the event of single default Bank shall have the right to take possession of the secured assets and proceed as per law for enforcement of security and the personal guarantee. (e) The concession extended as above stands automatically withdrawn in case the company fails to remit the compromise amount within the stipulated time and the Bank reserves the right to proceed legally for recovery of entire dues in case the company does not comply with the above. (f) Company should withdraw suit/case filed against the Bank, if any. (g) Bank reserves the right for withdrawal of the OTS sanctioned at any point of time even during the period permitted for payment of OTS without assigning any reason for withdrawal of OTS. (h) In the event of Bank finding company’s mis- representation of facts, Bank reserves the right to withdraw the OTS permitted and proceed legally for recovery of entire dues. (i) In the event of non-compliance with any of the terms of the sanction by the Company, including payment of the OTS amount as per the stipulated schedule, the OTS sanction stands automatically withdrawn without assigning any reasons for the same and the Bank reserves the right to proceed as it deems fit including proceeding legally for recovery of the etire dues.” (Emphasis added)
The Bank reserved liberty to itself that in the event of non- compliance with any terms of sanction including payment of OTS14amount as per schedule, the right to withdraw OTS sanction. To this communication the petitioner replies by accepting OTS letter issued by the Bank and also requested the Bank that proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal be closed as the petitioner was in receipt of summons from the DRT. The communications between the petitioner and the Bank again continued with regard to relaxation of certain conditions and on 11-12-2020, the Bank accepts the conditions and re-worked OTS in the following manner: “This is with reference to your letter cited above on the subject matter. The competent authority has permitted the following:
1. Extension of time permitted for payment of OTS amount from 22-02-2020 i.e., expiry date of OTS to 31-12-2020 i.e., date of last installment of OTS amount (313 days) in making payment of the entire OTS amount of Rs.1800.00 lakh. (Rs. 500.0-0 lacs kept in prospective buyer’s current account will be adjusted immediately on conveying this sanction).
2. The OTS shall carry the delayed period interest and expenses of Rs.214.92 lakh (Rupees two crores fourteen lacs and ninety two thousand only) calculated at MCLR + 1.50 (MCLR820% as on 1.04.2020) i.e.,, 9.70% compounded monthly for the differential period.
3. Rs.1500.00 Lacs plus delayed period of interest as stated above shall be paid on or before 31-12-2020 and the secured properties shall be released after receipt of entire amount. 15 Other terms and conditions:
1. The company has to withdraw suit/case against the Bank, if any.
2. Bank reserves the right for withdrawal of the OTS sanctioned at any point of time even during the period permitted for payment of OTS without assigning any reasons for withdrawal of OTS.
3. In the event of Bank finding company’s mis-representation of facts, bank reserves the right to withdraw the OTS permitted and proceed legally for recovery of entire dues.
4. In the event of non-compliance with any of the terms of the sanction by the party, including payment of the OTS amount as per the stipulated schedule, the OTS sanction stands automatically withdrawn without assigning any reasons for the same and the Bank reserves the right to proceed as it deems fit including proceeding legally for recovery of the entire dues.
5. Upon payment of the entire OTS amount as per the terms of sanction, the accounts will appear in the records of the Credit Information Companies (CICs) (Regulation) Act, 2005.” (Emphasis added)
But, later the petitioner request for extension of time due to COVID-19 pandemic on 16-12-2020. The Bank then extends the time up to 28-02-2021 in modification of the earlier dead line of 31- 12-2020. The communication of the Bank dated 28-01-2021 insofar as it is germane reads as follows: “Sub: M/s Rima Transformers and Conductors Pvt.Ltd. – Revival of OTS. Ref: (1) Our sanction letter CBBLR/SME/PNY/CR/517 16 /RTCPL/OTS/01 dt.11.12.2020. (2) Your letter No.Nil dated 16-12-2020. This is with reference to the subject matter. As per company’s request letter dated 16-12-2020, the time period to pay OTS amount has been extended for a further period of 2 months. Hence, the last date of full payment of OTS amount is permitted till 28-02-2021 as against the earlier deadline of 31-12- 2020. However, the extension in the OTS period is subject to payment of differential interest for the extended period in OTS amount, which calculate Rs.6.68 lacs for 15 days from 1-01-2021 to 15.01.2021. Details of interest calculation are annexed to this letter. ‘ Further the competent authority has permitted the following modifications:
1. Release of one of the immovable securities i.e., Factory Land & Building (Property bearing Plot No.18-D, Peenya, 2nd Phase Industrial Area, Sy.NO.40, measuring 4000 sq.mts., Chokkasandra Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore) upon receipt of 1590.00 lacs. Note: This property has already been released after receipt of Rs.1590.0-0 lacs. To the company’s account and based on board resolution dated 4.12.2020.
2. Release of remaining securities only upon receipt of the balance amount i.e., interest amount to Rs.131.60 lacs.” Based upon the said extension of deadline, the petitioner pays an amount of Rs.18.90 crores. The said payment is not in dispute and the receipt of the said payment by the Bank is also not in dispute. On 23-03-2021 what the Bank would do is to cancel OTS or withdraw OTS. The order withdrawing OTS reads as follows:
17. “To The Chairman & Managing Director,’ M/s Rima Transformers & Constructions Pvt.Ltd., No.18-D, II Phase, Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560 058. Sir, Sub:- Withdrawal of One Time Settlement (OTS) – reg. furnishing the latest address and e-mail id for further correspondences. Ref: (1) Our letter No.CB/BLR/SME/PNY/RTCPL/OTS/ REJ/01 dated 12-03-2021. (2) Your letter No.nil dated 20-03-2021. This is with reference to your letter cited above on the subject matter. Please refer our letter dated 12-03-2021 cited above on withdrawal of OTS proposal and continuation of SARFAESI action for recovery of the residual liabilities. Present liability for your account is as under: (Amount in INR in lacs) Nature of Limit Libiality Remarks Limit (as on 22.03.2021) OD/OCC95000 Rs.10 lacs as LC50000 1932.37 deposited chq. BG60000 No.63082 yet to be adjusted. We further would like to inform you that we do not have your present address to correspond our letters. The above said address is not in existence after disposing off the factory building. Earlier mail – [email protected] is also not working as our mail is getting bounce back. We could able to correspond only through your representative, Mr.Rajendran. In this regard, we request you to provide the present address with documentary proofs to enable us to send the communications from the Bank from time to time. Regards, Sd/- Sanjeet Kumar Assistant General Manager.” 18 The entire issue now revolves round the order of withdrawal of OTS. A perusal at the order of withdrawal of OTS becomes clear that it bears no reasons as to why OTS is withdrawn. The only reason indicated is continuance of SARFAESI action for recovery of residual liabilities and the present liability as on the said date was Rs.63082 lacs. according to the order withdrawing OTS. No other reason is indicated as to why OTS is cancelled. It is also to be noticed that payment also is not indicated in the communication withdrawing OTS. But, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid Rs.18.90 crores to the Bank. The Bank would not stop at cancellation of OTS but would seek to put other properties of the petitioner to auction which are depicted as schedule properties in the petition. It is at that juncture the petitioner knocks the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the amount was not paid in full, interest had to be paid and, therefore, exercising liberty that it had reserved to itself while offering OTS, the OTS comes to be cancelled. No fault can be found with the said action. This submission, in the peculiar 19 facts of this case, is unacceptable. It is not in dispute that the Bank is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Even in a commercial transaction of this kind, it has a duty to act fairly. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited Rs.18.90 crores by selling his property and the Bank retains Rs.18.90 crores and proceeds to auction other properties of the petitioner on the ground that the loan is not cleared. It would have been a circumstance altogether different if the petitioner had defaulted in OTS. Before the deadline that was stipulated by the Bank on agreed terms and conditions which was on 28-02-2021 the petitioner had deposited Rs.18.90 crores and later on 26-03-2021 deposits Rs.52/- lacs and on 10-05-2021 deposits another Rs.25/- lacs. All these amounts are accepted by the Bank. In one breath amount is accepted and in the other SARFAESI proceedings are instituted by cancelling OTS. If the Bank had cancelled OTS it could not have retained the amount paid under OTS and put the property of the petitioner to sale as well. This action of the Bank does not behove its status of being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 20
13. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and, therefore, he is to be non-suited is also unacceptable, as in the considered view of this Court, the suppression of fact is not so material that the petitioner will have to be thrown out of the doors holding that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The contention is advanced only to cover up the folly of the Bank for having acted in such an unfair manner. The judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel qua the petitioner that if the party comes to the Court with unclean hands, the petition should not be entertained would not be applicable to the fact situation. There can be no qualm about the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of ABN AMRO BANK (supra). But, its inapplicability is what declines its acceptance.
14. The other submission made by the learned senior counsel for respondent is that the Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the Bank to offer OTS or extend the offer that was made for OTS. To buttress his submission on this contention, the learned senior counsel has 21 placed reliance on the judgment in the case of ARVINDRA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED (supra). The said judgment is again distinguishable without much ado. The facts before the Apex Court in the said case are as is found in para-5 and it reads as follows: “…. …. ….
5. That thereafter the Bank floated another OTS Scheme for settlement of outstanding payment of Rs. 9,48,39,614/- for an amount of Rs. 4,48,79,711/-. However, the borrower did not opt for the said scheme. That thereafter one another OTS Scheme was floated by the Bank in the year 2019 and the Bank made an offer to the borrower to settle the account for an amount of Rs. 4,11,13,953/- against outstanding amount of Rs. 5,98,39,614/-. The borrower again did not opt for the scheme. Even one another OTS Scheme was floated which was offered to the borrower and the borrower did not opt for the scheme. Vide communication dated 24.02.2021 the bank rejected the OTS offer of Rs. 2.05 crores as according to the Bank amount due by the borrower was Rs. 23.54 crores. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has set aside the communication dated 24.02.2021 rejecting the OTS offer of Rs. 2.05 crores made by the borrower and has granted further six weeks' time from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to the borrower to make the payment of Rs. 2.02 crores with interest as per the OTS sanctioned letter dated 21.09.2017.” The borrower therein who was offered OTS not once but twice had not availed the same by making any payment but approaches the High Court seeking a direction to extend the offer of OTS. The High Court had directed. It is against the said direction the Bank had 22 knocked the doors of the Apex Court. The Apex Court holds that Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct extension of OTS. But, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are entirely different. The petitioner’s offer of OTS was accepted by the Bank with certain conditions. The petitioner accepts the terms and conditions. Before the deadline fixed by the Bank as 28-02-2021 for compliance of OTS conditions, the petitioner had deposited Rs.18.90 crores. and the Bank later unilaterally withdraws OTS. It is in these facts the judgment of the Apex Court would not become applicable.
15. The petitioner becomes entitled to the prayer that is sought in the peculiar facts of this case, as the Bank has been absolutely unfair to the petitioner. Whether a defaulter should be shown any indulgence would have been the question if the petitioner had not complied with OTS or not fulfilled any condition of OTS. According to the petitioner, he has paid the entire amount that was indicated in the OTS by selling his property that he had mortgaged with the Bank with the permission of the Bank. Therefore, the Bank having accepted the offer of the petitioner at 23 every step, could not have wriggled out by cancelling OTS at the climax and further could not have retained the entire amount of Rs.19 crores and again sought to e-auction the other properties of the petitioner for realizing the alleged interest, which according to the petitioner nothing remains to be paid, but according to the Bank certain amounts are due. It would have been open for the Bank to have had a dialogue with the petitioner in the peculiar facts rather than putting other properties of the petitioner to sale after having received Rs.19.52 crores towards the amount offered in OTS.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed and the communication dated 23-03-2021 of the respondent/Bank stands quashed. (ii) The proceedings initiated by the respondent/Bank under the SARFAESI Act dated 29-04-2021 by seeking to conduct e-auction, though the date of e-auction is over, stands quashed. (iii) Mandamus issues to the Bank to take OTS offer as accepted by the Bank, to its logical end. 24 Consequently, I.A.1/2022 stands disposed. Sd/- JUDGE bkp