9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the terms of the Sale Notice and would have had the opportunity to reject the same. At the outset, the contention of the plaintiff that the bid stood accepted on the fall of hammer is again contrary to the sale condition supra, of the highest bid being subject to approval of the Authorized Officer of the defendant Bank. The bid was thus not to be accepted on the fall of hammer but only on approval of the Authorized Officer of the defendant Bank. Since the plaintiff as per the Sale Notice was required to be present at the time of opening of the bids, for inter se bidding if any required and has admitted such presence inasmuch as the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- was paid on the same day, it follows that the minutes aforesaid were drawn in the presence of the plaintiff. The admission, during admission/denial of documents by the plaintiff, of the said minutes is also indicative thereof. Thus, the argument of the plaintiff of the defendant Bank having accepted his conditional offer cannot be believed. Not only so, the letter dated 27th January, 2010 also was not issued “thereafter” but before the plaintiff left the office of the defendant Bank. The said letter is in fact the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27th January, 2010; accordingly, the plaintiff deposited a further sum of Rs.13,50,000/- with the defendant Bank to make up a total deposit of 25% of the bid amount; (v) thereafter the plaintiff received letter dated 27th January, 2010 from the defendant Bank again stating that the statutory and other dues payable and due on the secured asset shall be borne by the plaintiff; (vi) that the aforesaid was in contradiction to the conditional bid submitted by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant Bank and in pursuance whereto the plaintiff had deposited a further sum of Rs.13,50,000/-; (vii) that the plaintiff visited the defendant Bank on several occasions for withdrawal of the aforesaid condition, but to no avail and ultimately the plaintiff vide letter dated 19th February, 2010 called upon the defendant Bank to refund the money but the defendant Bank in its reply dated 6th March, 2010 avoided the issue; (viii) that the plaintiff got legal notice dated 18th March, 2010 issued calling upon the defendant Bank to refund the amount of Rs.22,50,000/- deposited by him and to which a reply dated 22nd March, 2010 was given by the defendant Bank, leading the plaintiff to institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale Notice dated 19th January, 2010 scheduled the auction of property No.B-814 A, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase-II, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on 27th January, 2010 at its office at Rajendra Place, New Delhi at 3.00 PM and had invited in sealed cover offers for purchase of the said property fixing the Reserve Price at Rs.85 lakhs. The relevant conditions mentioned in the Sale Notice were as under: 1..... 2. The intending bidders should send their sealed cover along with an EMD of Rs.8.50 Lakh (Refundable without any interest to unsuccessful Bidders) by way of demand draft drawn in favour of Dena Bank, payable at New Delhi. The amount of EMD paid by successful bidders shall be adjusted towards the sale price. 3.... 4. The sealed offers will be opened by the undersigned at Rajendra Place, Branch on 27/01/10 at 3.00 PM. 5. After opening the tenders, the intending bidders may be given an opportunity at the discretion of the authorized officer to have inter se bidding amongst them to enhance the offer price. 6. The highest bid will be subject to approval of the secured creditor/Authorized officer. 7. On completion of the auction, the successful purchasers shall deposit 25% (less t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roprietor, M/s Rollcon Industries had submitted his bid vide letter dated 20.01.2010 along with EMD amount of Rs.9.00 lacs (Lacs) vide Demand Draft bearing No.675302 dated 19.01.2010 as he had quoted his bid for Rs.90.00 lacs (Rupees Ninety Lacs Only). Mr. Anoop Madan, Proprietor, M/s Rollcon Industries further submitted in his letter dt. 20.01.2010 that he shall be able to deposit remaining 75% of the sale price i.e. Rs.67.50 lacs (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 25.03.2010 in lieu of fifteen days from the date of sale. As there is only bidder so we have acceded to his request for deposit of remaining 75% of the sale price i.e. Rs.67.50 lacs (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 25.03.2010 in lieu of fifteen days from the date of sale, after accepting following Demand Draft/pay Order:- Thus Mr. Anoop Madan, Proprietor, M/s Rollcon Industries had deposited 25% of the sale price i.e. Rs.22.50 lacs (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) and the sale was confirmed in his favour subject to the deposit of remaining 75% of the sale price i.e. Rs.67.50 lacs (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 25.03.2010. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f receipt of this letter. The defendant Bank vide its reply dated 6th March, 2010 informed the plaintiff that it was unable to accede to the request of the plaintiff for refund and called upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.67.50 lakhs on or before 25th March, 2010. 14. Need is not felt to reiterate the contents of the legal notice dated 18th March, 2010 and reply dated 22nd March, 2010 thereto. 15. The contention of the counsel for the plaintiff is that the Sale Notice dated 19th January, 2010 was an invitation to offer; that the bid dated 20th January, 2010 was an offer of the plaintiff; the same was accepted on the fall of hammer and upon which acceptance, the plaintiff deposited Rs.13,50,000/-; on acceptance of the offer, the defendant Bank is deemed to have accepted the conditional offer of the plaintiff and could not have thereafter reneged from the same. It is contended that the defendant Bank having reneged from the contract, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the monies paid and the defendant Bank is not entitled to forfeit the same interms of the conditions of the Sale Notice. 16. On the contrary, the contention of the counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract with the condition imposed by the plaintiff and the defendant Bank being in breach thereof, is not entitled to forfeiture of the amount paid. 20. The argument though attractive on the face, is factually not tenable. The offers/bids were invited in sealed cover. It can thus safely be assumed that the offer dated 20th January, 2010 of the plaintiff comprising aforesaid of a single sheet was contained in a sealed envelope. The said sealed envelopes were to be opened only on 27th January, 2010 at 3.00 PM. The defendant Bank itself till the stage of opening of the sealed envelope submitted by the plaintiff had no occasion to know that the offer of the plaintiff was a conditional one and was well-neigh entitled to presume that the offer contained in the sealed envelope was in accordance with the Sale Notice. Had the plaintiff been desirous of making a conditional offer, the plaintiff ought to have besides the sealed envelope containing its bid and EMD, given an open letter to the defendant Bank setting out its condition and only in which eventuality, the defendant Bank prior to the opening of the sealed offers/bids could have had notice of the bid/offer of the plaintiff being n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntiff, of the said minutes is also indicative thereof. Thus, the argument of the plaintiff of the defendant Bank having accepted his conditional offer cannot be believed. 25. Not only so, the letter dated 27th January, 2010 also was not issued thereafter but before the plaintiff left the office of the defendant Bank. The said letter is in fact the approval of the bid of the plaintiff by the Authorized Officer of the defendant Bank. The said acceptance again, save for varying the date of payment of the balance sale consideration, reiterates the other conditions of the Sale Notice. The plaintiff is shown to have personally accepted the said letter on 27th January, 2010 itself. 26. The chronology of events in the office of the defendant Bank on 27th January, 2010 is revealed as, (i) opening of the bids; (ii) the plaintiff agreeing to give up the condition in his bid of being not liable for statutory dues and the defendant Bank agreeing to extend the time for payment of balance sale consideration; (iii) the Minutes of Auction being drawn up; and, (iv) the letter dated 27th January, 2010 being issued by the defendant Bank to the plaintiff. 27. Had the plaintiff not given up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
