2026:JHHC:5373 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4448 of 2025 ---- Ashish Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o Raghunath Prasad, House No.812, Irgu Road, Lorick Mistry Lane, Pahari Tal, Kumhar Toli, P.O. G.P.O P.S Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi, 834001 (Jharkhand) …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. Bank of India, through its Chief Manager, having its office at Bank of India Head Office, Star Hosue, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O Bandra (East), P.S BKC, District Mumbai 400051 (Maharashtra) 2. Authorized Officer, Bank of India, having its office at Birsa Raj Marg (Vip Road), Near Sahjanand Chowk, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi, P.O. Harmu Colony, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, 834012 (Jharkhand) …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S Mittal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. Debopriyo Pal, Adv. : Mr. Navneet Kr. Dhan, Adv. ---- 04/Dated: 24th February, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. In pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2026, Mr. Manoj R Prasad, Chief Manager (Authorised Officer) and Ms. Khyati Sinha, Manger (Law), Bank of India have appeared before this Court. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for following reliefs:- “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)direction(s), including a writ in the nature of mandamus, for directing the respondents to forthwith give peaceful and vacant possession of the property purchased by the petitioner vide auction process conducted by the Respondent Bank pursuant to auction notice dated 19.11.2024 for property ID: BKIDRAN144. (ii) In the alternate to relief (i) above, for the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), including a writ in the nature of mandamus, for directing the Respondents to forthwith refund Rs. 82,68,000/- deposited by the Petitioner against the purchase of the property vide auction, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of 2026:JHHC:5373 2 W.P.(C) No.4448 of 2025 deposit till the date of refund, especially because despite lapse of more than half a year from the date of full payment, the Respondents have yet not provided peaceful and/or vacant possession of the property to the Petitioner. (iii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), including a writ in the nature of Declaration, for declaring that the actions of the Respondent Bank in misrepresenting and willfully concealing the existence of pending legal proceedings affecting the subject property on the date of issuance of the auction/sale notice i.e., on 19.11.2024, and further insisting on payment of the entire sum of Rs. 82,68,000/- against purchase of the property by the Petitioner and also unethically coercing the Petitioner into signing an undertaking, despite the fact that the Bank does not have encumbrance free possession of the subject property till date is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.” 4. The factual matrix of the present case which has been put forth by the petitioner are as follows:- (i) The respondent Bank has issued an e-auction notice dated 19.11.2024 in the daily newspaper under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 inviting bids for sale of immovable property of the borrower for recovery of the due amount i.e., Rs.15.83 Lac along with interest. (ii) The mortgage property was situated at Upkar Nagar, Kadru, Ranchi (Plot No.2058/Part, Khata No.115) measuring 03 Katha with a house. The date of auction was fixed on 24.12.2024 with reserve price fixed as 43.68 Lac with a condition that the successful bidder has to deposit 25% of the bid amount included Earnest Money Deposit of 10% within one working day of the auction. (iii) The e-auction process has been held on 26.12.2024 and the petitioner has participated in the same. The petitioner has submitted highest bid of Rs.82,68,000/-. A Sale Intimation Letter dated 30.12.2024 has been issued wherein it was stipulated that the balance 75% of the bid amount i.e., Rs.62,01,000/- has to be deposited within 15 days i.e., by 14.01.2025. The petitioner had deposited 25% of the auction amount, including the Earnest 2026:JHHC:5373 3 W.P.(C) No.4448 of 2025 Money Deposit in accordance with the terms of the auction. As per the sale intimation letter, the remaining 75% of the bid amount was required to be deposited on or before 14.01.2025. However, the petitioner requested an extension of period of 30 days before the Authorized Officer for making the balance payment permissible under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. (iv) Despite provision for extension under the Act, the respondent Bank denied the request of the petitioner and insisted the payment within the original timeline. The respondent Bank further threatened the petitioner that failure to comply the condition would result in forfeiture of the deposited amount. The Bank Officials coerced the petitioner into signing an undertaking dated 13.01.2025 under duress by threatening that the sum of Rs.20,67,000/- would be forfeited in case of non-compliance. The undertaking was executed by the petitioner under compulsion and in bad faith. The extension of time has been granted only after the said undertaking which was forcibly obtained from the petitioner. (v) The petitioner within the extended time i.e. 14.02.2025 has deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.82,68,000/- . (vi) After deposition of the amount, the respondent Bank acknowledged the receipt of remaining 75% of the bid amount confirming full deposition of Rs.82,68,000/- by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Bank for immediate possession by e-mail on 06.03.2025. But the respondent Bank has denied to hand over the possession to the petitioner and also denied to issue the sale certificate. The petitioner has again requested for issuance the same before the Bank Authority with all relevant documents vide e-mail 07.04.2025, but the respondent-Bank on dated 08.04.2025 sent an e-mail to the petitioner stating that they have applied for permission from the District Magistrate for physical possession. Aggrieved by the respondent’s arbitrary conduct, the petitioner again sent an e-mail dated 15.04.2025 stating that the undertaking in question was 2026:JHHC:5373 4 W.P.(C) No.4448 of 2025 executed solely on the basis of information and assurance of the Bank Officials. The petitioner was categorically informed that prior to the auction held on 26.12.2024, an application had already been made to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for permission to take physical possession of the property in accordance with the provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002. (vii) The respondent-Bank wilfully suppressed the material information regarding ongoing legal dispute upon the concerned property being case S.A No.86 of 2024 filed on 05.10.2024 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Thus, the respondent-Bank mislead the petitioner. The petitioner knowing the existence of the said legal dispute, immediately sent an email dated 19.04.2025 to the Bank for clarification, but the respondent failed to response the same. (viii) Being aggrieved the petitioner made a formal complaint before the Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman against the Bank which was registered as Complaint No.N202526018000558. The petitioner received an e-mail dated 27.05.2025 from the Banking Ombudsman stating that the respondent Bank is unable to deliver the physical possession of the property as it was only in symbolic possession and delivery of possession could be made only after permission from the District Magistrate. The respondent Bank vide e-mail dated 28.07.2025 once again reiterated its earlier position by stating that the property was sold under symbolic possession and it will be handed over after permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and called it only the delay procedural. This repeated justification without progress, worsens the petitioner’s hardship and shows the Banks evasiveness. 5. It appears that there was a loan and the property, in question, has been put in auction for recovery of the loan amount. The sale was completed on 13.02.2025 and the entire amount has been deposited. 2026:JHHC:5373 5 W.P.(C) No.4448 of 2025 6. The law is settled that possession is the nine point of the title rather it can be said that it is the main point. If possession is not delivered by the seller then the entire transaction is fruitless. 7. It also appears from the fact of the case that the recovery of Bank owe the dues to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- so far as recovery part is concerned and he has to recover only Rs.16,00,000/- from that property. While the property, in question, has been sold at the cost of Rs.83,00,000/-. Thus, some money has to be returned to the loanee/guarantor. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is suffering because he has deposited the entire bid amount, but he has not got the possession even after lapse of one year 9. In the present case there is no allegation against the petitioner. He has participated in the auction process and being successful bidder, the bid has been confirmed in his favour. Accordingly, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount as demanded by the Bank with an extension of time which has been duly granted by the Bank. 10. A counter affidavit has been filed and a specific stand has been taken that the Bank has tried their best, but due to non -cooperative attitude of the District Magistrate, the physical possession has not been taken, and as such, the same has not been handed over to the petitioner. 11. The law is also settled that for failure of the Bank, in getting possession, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. The entire amount has been deposited on 13.02.2025 i.e., nearly about a year, still the possession has not been handed over to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:5373 6 W.P.(C) No.4448 of 2025 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petition is hereby, allowed directing the Bank to return the entire deposited amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. The entire auction process stands cancelled. However, the Bank is at liberty to proceed with the impugned property in accordance with law. 14. The personal appearance of the abovementioned Bank Officials is hereby, dispensed with. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 24th February, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 27.02.2026