1 2026:CGHC:18518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1360 of 2026 1 - Ankit Wadhwani S/o Late Shri Devidas Wadhwani Aged About 33 Years R/o Behind Yamaha Show Room, Jagmal Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station- City Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.), Mo.No. 9713481000. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Punjab National Bank Through - Assistant General Manager Cum Authorized Officer, Budhawari Bazar Branch Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct to the respondent bank to refund the amount tune of Rs. 6,93,750/-with interest to the petitioner, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 02.02.2015, the respondent Bank published an e-auction sale notice in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, Bilaspur, inviting online bids for sale of Shop No. 3, Block-A, Ground Floor, constructed upon land bearing Khasra Nos. 273/1, 273/2, 273/3, 273/4 and 271/1, situated at Village Talapara, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, fixing the reserve price at Rs. 25,75,000/- that in terms of the said notice, the petitioner deposited 10% of the reserve price, i.e., Rs. 2,57,500/-, as earnest money through Demand Draft No. 660218 dated 05.03.2015 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Budhwari Bazar, Bilaspur that thereafter, on 09.03.2015, the respondent Bank provided login credentials and conducted a demo training on 10.03.2015 via email and on 10.03.2015 accepted the petitioner’s bid of Rs. 27,75,000/- and directed him to deposit 25% of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 6,93,750/- (including EMD) on or before 25.03.2015 that in compliance thereof, the petitioner deposited an additional amount of Rs. 4,36,250/- vide Demand Draft No. 3 019441 dated 10.03.2015 drawn on Central Bank of India, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, thereby completing 25% of the bid amount, and thereafter requested the respondent Bank on 24.03.2015 to execute the registered sale deed and hand over possession of the property that despite repeated requests dated 12.01.2018, 10.05.2019, 17.11.2020 and 13.04.2021, the respondent Bank failed to execute the sale deed or deliver possession, merely giving assurances from time to time; that subsequently, on 11.03.2026, the petitioner came to know from reliable sources about a dispute concerning the said property decided by the District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Case No. 15/B-121/2015-2016 between Punjab National Bank and Smt. Polly Chakraborty, and upon obtaining certified copies on 16.03.2026, it came to light that at the time of issuance of the e-auction notice, the respondent Bank was not in possession of the property and litigation was pending between the Bank and the owner, and further that this Hon’ble Court had, vide order dated 30.10.2015 passed in WPC No. 807/2015 (Mrs. Polly Chakraborty vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank & others), stayed the auction proceedings that the said writ petition was later dismissed on 01.08.2019 and the writ appeal thereagainst was disposed of on 23.10.2019, thereby clearly establishing that the respondent Bank was aware of the pending litigation at the time of conducting the e-auction but deliberately suppressed such material facts; that had the petitioner been aware of the said dispute, he would 4 neither have participated in the e-auction nor deposited the amount of Rs. 6,93,750/-, as he participated under the bona fide belief that the property was free from encumbrances; that since the respondent Bank is neither in possession of the property nor capable of executing the sale deed, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the entire amount of Rs. 6,93,750/-; and that despite repeated demands, the respondent Bank has failed to refund the said amount, demonstrating arbitrariness and inaction, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present petition before this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Bank has acted in a wholly arbitrary and mala fide manner by suppressing material facts at the time of issuance of the e-auction sale notice dated 02.02.2015, inasmuch as the Bank was neither in possession of the property in question nor in a position to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, which conduct is in clear violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shariq vs. Punjab National Bank & Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 392, particularly paragraphs 25, 26, and 27. It is further submitted that the respondent Bank deliberately failed to disclose to the petitioner that it was incapable of handing over possession or completing the sale, and also did not intimate the petitioner regarding refund of the amount of Rs. 6,93,750/-, thereby demonstrating arbitrary and mala fide conduct; it is contended that despite being fully 5 aware of its inability to transfer the property, the respondent Bank proceeded to confirm the petitioner’s bid and accepted 25% of the bid amount, which itself establishes clear illegality; it is further urged that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to pay the remaining 75% of the sale consideration and had submitted several representations in this regard, however, the respondent Bank has neither communicated any status regarding the pending litigation nor refunded the amount deposited by the petitioner, and such inaction and suppression of facts on the part of the respondent Bank has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, thereby entitling him to appropriate relief from this Hon’ble Court. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the Bank has, in principle, agreed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner; however, it is contended that, insofar as the payment of interest is concerned, the Bank faces certain constraints and difficulties in acceding to the petitioner’s claim for interest on the said amount. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Accordingly, both the parties are directed to mutually arrive at an appropriate arrangement before the respondent Bank, in accordance with law, so as to facilitate resolution of the dispute in an amicable and expeditious manner. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of, with a further direction to the parties 6 to make earnest and effective endeavours to amicably settle the dispute between them at the earliest, in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner shall be at liberty to institute a fresh petition, in accordance with law, in the event that no settlement is arrived at between the parties. 9. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent Bank in the week commencing 4th May, 2026, and, in turn, the respondent Bank is also directed to make earnest endeavours to facilitate an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat