<p>The Karnataka High Court has directed a nationalised bank to refund Rs 30.69 crore to an auction purchaser for not delivering a property that was free from all encumbrances.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the auction purchaser of a property situated in Peenya and quashed the sale certificate.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna negated the contention that a writ petition for the sake of recovery of money is not maintainable.</p>.Karnataka High Court summons Priyank Kharge in election petition case.<p>The court cited Apex Court judgements that if the state acts in an arbitrary manner, even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the high court.</p>.<p>“The case at hand would form a classic illustration for entertainment of a writ petition allowing a money claim, as the bank, a state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has conducted itself which would not behove its status,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Paramount Constructions Company, had taken part in the auction sale.</p>.<p>The company claims to have borrowed all the money to fund auction purchase (Rs 15.21 crore) and the bank in question — Punjab National Bank (now Union Bank of India) — issued the sale certificate in October 2014.</p>.<p>It was from the time an application for change of khata was filed that the petitioner started facing several litigations over the property. The petitioner moved the high court after the bank refused to refund <br>Rs 30,69,08,217.</p>.<p><strong>e-auction notice</strong></p>.<p>The bank contended that it is not responsible for any problem that would crop up after the sale, as the e-auction notice clearly indicated that the property is being sold “as is where is basis, as is what is basis”.</p>.<p>“That would not mean that an auction purchaser could be put in possession of the property which is not free from encumbrance. ‘As is where is’ cannot mean that the property did not have title itself for it to be sold in a public auction.</p>.<p>“The responsibility undoubtedly rests on the part of the bank to have not conducted any due diligence either while granting the finance or while putting the property to sale, or even at a time when the petitioner was delivered documents and possession of the property,” the court said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “Several litigations have emerged after the sale of the property to the petitioner and the petitioner having invested huge amounts in 2014 is yet to reap the benefits of the said sale all for the reason that litigations are galore. Therefore, it is for the bank now to refund the amount as is claimed by the petitioner,” the court said.</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court has directed a nationalised bank to refund Rs 30.69 crore to an auction purchaser for not delivering a property that was free from all encumbrances.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the auction purchaser of a property situated in Peenya and quashed the sale certificate.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna negated the contention that a writ petition for the sake of recovery of money is not maintainable.</p>.Karnataka High Court summons Priyank Kharge in election petition case.<p>The court cited Apex Court judgements that if the state acts in an arbitrary manner, even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the high court.</p>.<p>“The case at hand would form a classic illustration for entertainment of a writ petition allowing a money claim, as the bank, a state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has conducted itself which would not behove its status,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Paramount Constructions Company, had taken part in the auction sale.</p>.<p>The company claims to have borrowed all the money to fund auction purchase (Rs 15.21 crore) and the bank in question — Punjab National Bank (now Union Bank of India) — issued the sale certificate in October 2014.</p>.<p>It was from the time an application for change of khata was filed that the petitioner started facing several litigations over the property. The petitioner moved the high court after the bank refused to refund <br>Rs 30,69,08,217.</p>.<p><strong>e-auction notice</strong></p>.<p>The bank contended that it is not responsible for any problem that would crop up after the sale, as the e-auction notice clearly indicated that the property is being sold “as is where is basis, as is what is basis”.</p>.<p>“That would not mean that an auction purchaser could be put in possession of the property which is not free from encumbrance. ‘As is where is’ cannot mean that the property did not have title itself for it to be sold in a public auction.</p>.<p>“The responsibility undoubtedly rests on the part of the bank to have not conducted any due diligence either while granting the finance or while putting the property to sale, or even at a time when the petitioner was delivered documents and possession of the property,” the court said.</p>.<p>The court further said, “Several litigations have emerged after the sale of the property to the petitioner and the petitioner having invested huge amounts in 2014 is yet to reap the benefits of the said sale all for the reason that litigations are galore. Therefore, it is for the bank now to refund the amount as is claimed by the petitioner,” the court said.</p>