IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35254 of 2008(V)
1. N.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN BANK,KOLLAM, REP.BY ITS BRANCH
... Respondent
2. M/S.SUNDARESAN, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
For Petitioner :SRI.MANU TOM
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANJAY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :01/12/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 35254 OF 2008 V
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by
the refusal to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction
conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 publication sale notice issued by
the first respondent Bank. Ext.P1 specifically provides the last
date for submitting the tenders/bids is before 5 PM on
8.11.2008.
2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted
tender and participated in the auction in lot No.4 by making
payment of EMD and also quoting the amount. But, there were
higher bids. Ext.P1 had been published. Petitioner approached
the first respondent. Petitioner wanted to participate. It is
further stated that when the petitioner approached the first
respondent with the money on 8.11.2008, he was told that there
was a stay order from the High Court and hence the tender could
not be opened on 10.11.2008. It is the specific submission that
WPC.35254/08 V 2
the Bank was willing to accept the tender, but could not specify
as to when the bids could be opened. It is also stated that this
would mean that if the EMD is deposited, the same was likely to
be blocked indefinitely. It is further stated that the petitioner
could not submit his tender in such uncertain conditions and
enquired in the matter. Reference was made to W.P.(C).
No.32696/08 wherein the petitioner therein obtained an order. It
is then stated that the petitioner understood that the High Court
has passed an order directing the respondent to open the bid
only on 1.12.2008. It is then stated that the petitioner has
approached the first respondent to accept his tender, but it was
declined. The grounds taken are that it is illegal, arbitrary and
against natural justice. It is stated that the petitioner’s credibility
cannot be questioned as the petitioner had participated in a bid
quoting a huge amount of Rs.1,75,85,000/= and that the
respondent had accepted tenders from several other participants,
but in connivance with other participants, is declining the
legitimate claim of the petitioner.
WPC.35254/08 V 3
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.
The sale is being held pursuant to a Notification. The last date
and time were specifically mentioned. There is no provision as
such permitting the Bank to receive tenders given after the last
date. It is also pointed out that the Apex Court in PSEB And
Others v. Bhatia International Ltd. ((2006) 13 SCC 284) has
discountenanced any extension of time being granted by the
High Court. I see no valid reason to grant any of the reliefs
sought for by the petitioner and the Writ Petition fails and it is
dismissed.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge
