Regarding bidding in an SARFAESI auction, can a nationalized bank accept checque payment as the required 10% EMD payment in contravention of their own 'Terms and conditions for e-auction"?
The Bank perhaps has a sweetheart relationship with the alleged succesful bidder, going by the process they have followed to essentially deprive me of my property.
In the bid sheet provided to us, there were four bidders who had paid the required EMD by the approved mode of payment -NEFT/RTGS/Demand Draft drawn on a nationalised or scheduled bank by the date on which EMD ought to be furnished (say) 12-8-2017.
On the day of the auction (say) 14-8-2017, yet another bidder (alleged successful bidder) shows up, and is declared the successful bidder by the Bank, and the other four bidders had their 10% EMD returned to them.
After about 14 months of being given the run around. The DRT refused to order the Bank to provide me the bid details, and asked me to go the RTI route. Applied for RTI, was denied because the matter is sub-judice,then upon appeal bid details were provided to me.
In this sheet I noticed the word 'chk' written on it, and approached DRT for check encashment details, Bank once again gave the run around, and upon orders this time from the DRAT, finally got the Bank statement. The following came to light:
a) The bidder had given a checque dated 12-08-2017 which was credited to Bank account 14-08-2017 (for the 10% EMD), day of auction.
b) The bidder had also given a cheque for the remailning 15 percent (total of 25%) dated 23-08-2017, which was credited to the Bank account only on 08-08-2017.
The terms and conditions of the e-Auction clearly state the following:
a) The intending purchaser/bidder is REQUIRED to deposit EMD amount either through NEFT/RTGS in the account no......or by way of Demand Draft drawn on a Nationalised or Scheduled Bank by 5m on XX-XX-2017.
Dear friends, the following are my questions which I would be grateful if I can get inputs:from you:
1. Is this a valid auction, and if not can the auction be set aside on this basis?
2. Are there any citations from any High Courts/Supreme Court that would augment the above rule?
I say this since the Bidder is highly influential, and capable of exerting undue influence at all stages of the bidding process. If it is of any relevance, the Bank informs me that the Bidder has Overdraft with the same bank, had paid the money through the said Overdraft amount, and in anycase since the account is also in the same Bank, the cheque is as good as a Demand Draft.
It has been my experience that the DRT here pretty much acts as an extension of the Bank. I have had 5 successive IA that were denied by the DRT, which were allowed when I appealed at the DRAT.
The citations are important to me to 'convince' the Presiding Officer of the validity of my claim.
Thank you in advance for any inputs and suggestions, God bless.