- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15258 WP No. 10797 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10797 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI NEKKANTTI SRINIVAS RAO S/O N. RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ARAL ROAD, ODDERAHATTI, GANGAVATHI KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583 227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INDIAN BANK- CHIEF MANAGER TRESSED ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT BANK NO.10, 1STFLOOR INDIAN BANK BUILDING K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. 2. THE DESIGNATION OFFICER, RAHEJA TOWER, 4TH FLOOR EAST WING, NO.26/27, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU. 3. PSB ALLIANCES PVT. LTD., IS A COMPANY SET UP BY ALL PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15258 WP No. 10797 of 2025 E-AUCTION SERVICE PROVIDER 4TH FLOOR, METRO HOUSE, NEAR VADALA TRUCK TERMINAL MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI – 400 037. 4. M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MANTRI HOUSE REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRCTION COMPANY R/AT NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.CHITRA NIRMALA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A-CONFIRMED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN E- AUCTION / BID OF RS.34,75,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO. 107, BLOCK NO.9, BADA MANAVARTHA KAVAL VILLAGE (B.M.KAVAL), KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, MEASURING 3 ACRES 35 GUNTAS, BOUNDED ON EAST BY BDA ROAD, WEST BY BDA ROAD, NORTH BY PRIVATE, SOUTH BY BDA SITE BELONGING TO RESPONDENT NO.4 AS A SECURED ASSET IN THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BANK, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15258 WP No. 10797 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an e-auction that confirms the bid at Rs.34,75,00,000/- by the third respondent, who is a service provider and seeks a consequential mandamus to re-auction the secured asset. 2. Heard Sri Chokka Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Chitra Nirmala, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. The first respondent bank issues a sale notice of the immovable property belonging to respondent No.4, which is a secured asset bearing survey No.107, Block No.9, Bada Manavartha Kaval Village (B.M.Kaval), Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 35 guntas, with the following conditions: (1) Reserve Price – `32,15,00,000/- (2) EMD amount – `3,21,50,000/- (3) Bid incremental amount – `10,00,000/- (4) E-Auction platform dated : 26-03-2025 11.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. (5) Property ID No.IDBI50354167078 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15258 WP No. 10797 of 2025 The petitioner finding the capacity to participate in the e- auction deposits the EMD on 26.03.2025, which would enable him to participate in the e-auction; the e-auction was conducted on 26.03.2025, which began at 8.39 a.m. and the petitioner submitted his bid at `34,65,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after his bid, the network froze and thereafter, he could not login again, as there was a server issue, at his end. Later, he comes to know that the property is e-auctioned at `34,75,00,000/-. He alleges collusion between the bank officials and the respondents and therefore, seeks re-auction of the property. 4. The prayer of the petitioner cannot be imagined to be granted for the reason that the petitioner has participated in the auction. The petitioner’s bid price is at `34,65,00,000/- and the bid of the present highest bidder is `34,75,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that some technical clinch stopping from giving a higher bid than third respondent. If the petitioner has problem at his end and every other participant has not faced any problem, re-auction at the behest of the petitioner cannot be granted. Re-auction can be considered to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15258 WP No. 10797 of 2025 be granted only if there is arbitrariness in the conducting auction. Technical clinch is not at the site in which the auction took place, but at the site of the petitioner was participating is the issue, in the lis. Therefore, no stretch of imagination of arbitrariness is made out in the case at hand. This Court cannot sit in the armchair of the Auctioning Authority, assess, reevaluate, minute-to-minute, minute details of such auction. 5. With the aforesaid observations, petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44