1 2025:CGHC:31946-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 287 of 2025 Neeraj Kumar Rathore S/o. Shri Khem Prakash Rathore, aged about 25 years working as student, R/o. Gudi Chowk, Dumarpara, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Bank of India (S.B.I.) Through Regional Manager, Regional Business Office (R.B.O.), Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The State Bank of India, through the Chief Manager (Credit), Regional Business Office, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The State Bank of India Through The Branch Manager, Nayapara, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Magistrate/collector District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate through VC and Mr. Surya Pratap Yudhveer Singh, Adv. For Respondents/Bank : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Boar d Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 1 0 . 07 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, appearing through video-conferencing and Mr. Surya Pratap Yudhveer Singh, learned counsel for the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appellant. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for SBI / respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondent No.4. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 917 of 2025 (Neeraj Kumar Rathore Vs. The State Bank of India & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner has participated in the e-auction of the subject house property and quoted the best rates of Rs.25,00,000/- and on being successful he has deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank vide letter dated 08.08.2023 informed that the petitioner's bid being highest has been accepted and further the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.6,25,000/- being 25% of the bid amount by 09.08.2023 and remaining 75% i.e. Rs.18,75,000/- till 23.08.2025, but the appellant did not deposit the same, which was in contravention of Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 2002’) and as such, the 3 respondent-Bank has decided not to sell the property in question which was decided to be sold to the appellant by sale intimation letter dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P/2) and communicated the same to the appellant through communication dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P/6). 4. Questioning the communication dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P/6), the appellant has filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPC No. 917 of 2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 17.02.2025 directing the respondents/Bank to take a fresh decision about the cancellation of the sale intimation letter dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued to the petitioner by providing opportunity of hearing to him. It was further directed that the bank shall issue a notice to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on issuance of such notice, the petitioner was directed to explain and reply the said notice and thereafter, the bank shall take a decision by considering the reply of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. In pursuance to the said order, the respondent Bank, after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant and considering the reply filed by the appellant, the respondent Bank had duly informed the petitioner / appellant vide communication dated 19.03.2025 that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as 4 quoted by him pertains to Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 2002 and the cancellation of the sale in the present case pertains to Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2002, as he has not deposited 25% of the auction amount on the same day or the next working day and therefore, the auction stands cancelled. 6. Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant appearing through video-conferencing submitted that the learned Single Judge has completely failed to appreciate that, the respondent Bank had no physical possession of the subject property when they put the subject property on sale and further that, the respondent Bank already secured the sale amount in the shape of FDR's placed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondent Bank cannot be permitted to take the advantage of their own misconduct and to abuse the process of law especially in view of the FDRs placed by the petitioner with respondent Bank. The petitioner can not be punished for his no fault as he was always ready & willing to make the payment and it was the respondent Bank itself which caused violation of the provision of rule 9 (3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. He also submitted that the respondent Bank officials have misguided the petitioner to deposit the required sum in FDRs whereas, actual physical possession of the subject property had nothing to do with the subject auction sale. He contended that when a bank conducts an auction sale and asks the buyer to deposit the sale money as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), it's a common practice 5 to ensure the funds are secured and readily available for the transfer of ownership therefore, since the petitioner has already made the deposit as FDRs, the petitioner should not have been blamed for violation of the provision of rule 9 (3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In support of his contention, by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and Another Vs. Ikbal and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 83, he submits that as per the said verdict, Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 2002 are not mandatory in nature, but are directory in nature. Therefore, he prayed that the matter be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent – Bank opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the petitioner himself has duly admitted in his pleading that the Authorized Officer of the State Bank had informed vide letter dated 08.08.2023 that the petitioner's bid of amount of Rs.25,00,000/- is accepted as highest bid and has been declared as H-1 bidder for the said property and he was further directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount which comes to Rs.6,25,000/- (including 10% of reserved price as EMD amount, which was precondition for participation in auction), immediately but not later than 09.08.2023 in Account Number 37527815457 further the 6 petitioner/appellant is required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- being 75% of the amount within 15 days i.e. on or before 23.08.2023 in the same account number i.e. 37527815457, but the petitioner has only deposited Rs.2,50,000/- which is treated as EMD amount, and not deposited the remaining amount but has prepared some Bank Draft in his own, which is in his custody and the Bank did not have any control over the fixed deposit of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Bharat further submitted that on submission of representation by the petitioner after the disposal of writ petition, the Bank gave notice to the petitioner as per order dated 19.02.2025 and gave 10 days' time to submit his objection if any and on 19.03.2025 the Regional Manager of the respondent Bank duly informed the petitioner / appellant that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted by him pertains to Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the cancellation of the sale in the present case pertains to Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, as the petitioner has not deposited 25% of the auction amount on the same day or the next working day and therefore the auction stands cancelled by operation of law and as such, there is no occasion arise for this Court to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7 10. For disposal of the present writ appeal, consideration of Rule 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the Rules of 2002 is required, which reads as under :- “9. Time of sale, Issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- (3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e. on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five per cent. of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again; (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months].” 11. The aforesaid provisions specifically prescribed that 25% of the sale price is to be deposited on the same day or next working day and the maximum permissible period for deposit of balance 75% is 90 days. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner was duly informed by the respondent-Bank vide letter dated 08.08.2023 that his bid of amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- has been accepted as highest bid and he has been declared as H-1 bidder for the said property and he was further directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount which comes to Rs.6,25,000/- (including 10% of reserved price as EMD amount, which was precondition for participation in auction) 8 immediately but not later than 09.08.2023 in Account Number 37527815457 further the petitioner/appellant is required to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- being 75% of the amount within 15 days i.e. on or before 23.08.2023 in the same account number i.e. 37527815457, which the petitioner/appellant did not deposit and had only deposited 10% of the sale price i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-, and inspite of deposing the remaining amount in account number 37527815457, the petitioner has prepared a FDR of Rs.25,80,000/- in his own name from the same Bank, which is in his custody and the Bank did not have any control over the fixed deposit of the petitioner and for the said reason the Bank did not permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount with inordinate delay that is beyond the limit prescribed under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2002. 13. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has already disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent – Bank to take a fresh decision about the cancellation of the sale intimation letter dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued to the petitioner by providing opportunity of hearing to him and in compliance of the same, fresh decision has already been taken by the respondent-Bank after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such, question of remanding back the matter again to learned Single Judge for fresh consideration does not arise. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the 9 appellant is of no help as the same is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter, accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra