Loading...

N.Sureshkumar vs Indian Bank on 1 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
N.Sureshkumar vs Indian Bank on 1 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information