- (1.) Petitioner was purchaser of a property auctioned by respondent-Bank towards realization of outstanding dues. A public notice of e-auction was advertized on 27.08.2015 fixing 29.09.2015. One of the conditions mentioned in the auction notice was that highest bidder shall have to deposit 25% at the fall of hammer and remaining 75% of the bid offered was to be deposited on or before 15 days. Petitioner participated in the auction and bid offered by her was highest. Admittedly, the auction took place on 30.09.2015 and 15 days time expired on 14.10.2015. The Cheque of Rs.9,26,100/- being balance amount of 75% is alleged to have been deposited by the petitioner on 14.10.2015. When presented for encashment on 16.10.2015 the Cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund. On 17.10.2015, petitioner made an application before the Bank seeking extension of seven days time to deposit the balance 75% amount. Subsequently, petitioner transferred a sum of Rs.9,26,100/- on 17.10.2015 in the account of the Bank through RTGS.
(2.) Bank refusing to accept the aforesaid deposit being beyond the prescribed period put the property for fresh auction. Aggrieved by the said action, petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 60711 of 2015 which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to move Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(3.) Thereafter, petitioner made an application under Section 17 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'), which was numbered as Securitization Application no. 55 of 2016. Debts Recovery Tribunal finding that 75% of the bid amount in compliance of Rule 9 (4) was not deposited within time and there was no extension granted by Bank for depositing the amount with the concurrence of the borrower, the deposit by the petitioner through RTGS cannot be treated to be a valid deposit and accordingly dismissed the application.;