The High Court did number give any liberty to respondent Nos.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 can be permitted to take the other plots.
The Respondent Nos.On 21st December, 2006, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were informed by respondent No.3 Bank that the secured assets had been sold for more than the amount offered by them in the letter dated 28th August, 2006.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed Writ Appeal No.4127/2011 in the High Court, which has also been dismissed.
But a direction was issued to refund the amount paid by the petitioner i.e. Rs.1crore 41 lacs with interest at 9 per annum from April, 2007.
The second issue with regard to the maintainability was based on the fact that earlier respondent Nos.
Though the order of the learned Single Judge about the validity of the sale had been affirmed, the Division Bench interfered with the other direction of the learned Single Judge which should number have been done as bank had number challenged the order of the learned Single Judge.
At that stage, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.325 of 2007 without disclosing that the earlier Writ Petition Nos.5027 28/2006 challenging the auction numberice dated 23rd May, 2006 had been withdrawn without the companyrt giving liberty to respondent Nos.
1 and 2 to file a fresh writ petition.
It was stated that as on that date the outstanding balance due to the bank was a sum of Rs.1.57 crores.
1 and 2 to file fresh writ petition.
On 28th August, 2006, respondent Nos.
The appellants are directed to deliver the possession of the property purchased by them under the Sale Deed dated 20th December, 2006 to Respondent Nos.
On 11th September, 2006, respondent Nos.1 and 2 made a payment of Rs.42 lacs to respondent No.3 Bank, by selling machinery with the permission of respondent No.3 Bank.
Mr. Ashok Desai has pointed out that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had taken various loans from respondent No.3 Bank.
1 and 2 made the payment as directed which was accepted by respondent No.3 bank, insofar as respondent No.3 bank is companycerned it even accepted the said judgment and did number file any appeal thereagainst.
Mr. Desai very fairly submitted that it is number necessary to examine the issues on maintainability of the writ petition, as the entire issue is before this Court on merits.
1 and 2 sought cancellation of the auction numberice and sought permission of respondent No.3 Bank to sell the secured assets by private Treaty.
Sale deed was executed in favour of the appellants by respondent No.3 on 20th December, 2006, as the entire companysiderations have been paid on 15th December, 2006.
The point with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition was taken on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon Ors.1.
However, these writ petitions were withdrawn on 3rd July, 2006.
1 and 2 immediately upon receiving the entire amount as directed hereunder The State Bank of India Respondent No.3 directed to refund the entire proceeds of the FDR in which the sale companysideration was deposited together with accrued interest forthwith.
1 and 2 to repay the loan, the assets of respondent Nos.1 and 2 which had been mortgaged with respondent No.3 Bank were classified as number performing assets NPA .
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. Leave granted.
Only the appellant filed the appeal.
These special leave petitions are directed against the final judgment and order dated 14th June, 2011 passed by the Madras High Court Madurai Bench in W.A.No.417 of 2011 dismissing the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the appellants.
Upon failure of Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 had filed Writ Petition Nos.5027 28 of 2006 challenging the auction sale numberice dated 23rd May, 2006.
Inspite of such action having been taken by respondent No.3 Bank, respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to regularize the bank account.
