Whether documents can be by physically accepted in case of E-Auction?

   In the present case, in my considered opinion, the very basis of
calling for the tender on e-procurement basis would be defeated if
respondent No.2 accepts the documents submitted physically from 
respondent No.3. It appears from the counter affidavit of respondent
No.2 that not only respondent No.3 but some other bidders also
submitted documents physically. The essential terms and conditions of
the tender, having been violated, I am not convinced to uphold the
contentions of learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 as well as
learned Government pleader. It may be that the offer of respondent
No.3 is cheaper by considerable amount but that by itself is not the
criteria to overlook the essential conditions of tender having been
violated. The decision of Division Bench of this Court in PBR SELECT
INFRA PROJECTSs case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned senior  
counsel is clearly not applicable to the facts of this court as that case
dealt with the requirement of experience among the partnership firm
and its partners. For the reasons aforesaid, therefore, the action of
respondent No.2 in accepting the tender of respondent No.3 in
violation of the terms and conditions of tender cannot be approved.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR          

WRIT PETITION No.1068 of 2015   

Dated;13-02-2015 

M/s.KRK Infraprojects India Pvt. Ltd. 5-1-529, 
V
State of Telangana, 
                                 Citation;AIR 2015(NOC)703HYD

Print Page

Whether e-Auction are permissible under Securitisation Act?

It is further noted that the e-auction sale procedures are user friendly in nature. It is also noted that the intending purchasers could utilize the services of technically qualified persons or agencies, in making their bids. We are conscious of the fact that e-auction sale procedures, being followed by the respondent banks, have not been challenged by the purchasers, in the present batch of writ petitions. Further, nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate their claims that the intending purchasers would suffer certain impediments in making their bids, for the properties in question, due to their illiteracy. While so, it would not be open to the petitioners to claim, without furnishing sufficient materials before this Court, to show that the persons who had availed the financial facilities, including those who had been the guarantors and those who had created the mortgages or pledges, in respect of the properties in question, would be at a disadvantage due to the use of the e-auction sale procedures, which involves the use of digital technology. On the contrary, we are convinced that the e-auction sale procedures followed by the respondent banks and the authorities concerned would go a long way in reducing the unhealthy practices being followed by the cartels and the syndicates, in the public auction sales of the secured assets. Further, there is no specific prohibition, either in the provisions of the the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, or in the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, prohibiting the conducting of e-auction sales of the secured assets.

Madras High Court

4 S.Anandaraj vs State Bank Of India on 20 February, 2014

Print Page