SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Shakeena & Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Bank of India & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s).8097-8098 of 2009
Decided on : 20-08-2019.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(4) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 60 – Auction sale of secured asset (NPA) – Challenge to auction notice – Matter proceeded before High Court for setting aside entire auction process on the premise that sale certificate was yet to be registered in favour of highest bidder and appellants had made unsuccessful attempts to exercise their right of redemption by offering outstanding dues to respondent bank – Appellants had allowed action taken by respondent bank under Section 13(4) of 2002 Act, to become final consequent to order of DRT rejecting challenge thereto due to non-compliance of conditional order – Even subsequent application for restoration of DRT proceedings came to be rejected – Auction had already concluded including sale certificate was issued in favour of highest bidder when writ petition was filed by appellant – As per the terms and conditions for grant of loan payment by cheque(s) was not permissible – Respondent bank was not obliged to accept amount in form of cheque(s) – Appellants took no steps to pay outstanding dues to respondent bank by way of a valid tender – Appellants have failed to exercise their right of redemption in manner known to law – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 32)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeals take exception to impugned judgment and order of Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dated 10th August, 2007 in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.145 and 146 of 2007 respectively; whereby, Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by appellants praying for setting aside of notice issued by the respondent bank in exercise of powers under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 14th November, 2005 and consequent public notice dated 15th November, 2005 for sale of subject property, public auction conducted in furtherance thereof on 19th December, 2005, declaration of respondent No.3 as highest bidder in said public auction and sale certificate issued in his favour. Principal assertion of appellants before High Court was that they were wanting to exercise their right of redemption of mortgage, but due to fortuitous situation and the inappropriate stand taken by respondent bank were prevented from doing so.
Findings of Court:
For the view we have taken, it is not possible for us to countenance the argument of the appellants that we should exercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Reported decisions pressed into service by both sides also need not detain us as the appellants have, in law, lost their option to exercise right of redemption, consequent to registration of the sale certificate on 18th September, 2007 and their failure to pay the dues to the secured creditors before that date.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
These appeals take exception to the impugned judgment and order of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dated 10th August, 2007 in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.145 and 146 of 2007 respectively; whereby, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants praying for setting aside of notice issued by the respondent bank in exercise of powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "2002 Act") dated 14th November, 2005 and the consequent public notice dated 15th November, 2005 for sale of the subject property, the public auction conducted in furtherance thereof on 19th December, 2005, declaration of respondent No.3 as the highest bidder in the said public auction and the sale certificate issued in his favour dated 6th January, 2006.
2. Briefly stated, in 2003, Shri P. Shahul Hameed and Smt. Shakeena (appellants/borrowers) were sanctioned a term loan of Rs.10 Lacs each under Star Mortgage Loan by the respondent bank. The accounts became NPA (Non-Performing Assets) from 30th June, 2004. As there was default in re-payment, the respondent bank issued legal notice dated 19th October, 2004 to repay the dues within seven days. On 1st December, 2004, notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act to the appellants, calling upon them to discharge the loan within sixty days. In reply, the appellants by representations dated 10th December, 2004, requested the respondent bank to grant time for bringing the account in order. In view of the default in discharging the loans by the appellants, the respondent bank, exercised its power under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act. Accordingly, constructive possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the respondent bank on 8th February, 2005.
3. The appellants then filed S.A. Nos.21 and 22 of 2005, by invoking Section 17 of the 2002 Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai, challenging the notices, issued by the respondent bank. On 18th March, 2005, DRT-II, Chennai passed an order in S.A. Nos.21 and 22 of 2005 staying all further proceedings on condition that the appellants would pay Rs.1.50 Lac in each appeal. However, the appellants failed to comply with the said order and, therefore, the order being a self-operating order, stood automatically vacated. Later on, S.A. Nos.21 & 22 of 2005 were eventually dismissed for non-prosecution/default on 28th September, 2005, for non-payment of court fee.
4. The respondent bank then brought the secured property for sale by inviting sealed tenders vide sale notice dated 15th November, 2005. Notice was also given to the appellants on 14th November, 2005. The appellants herein neither objected to the said sale notice nor challenged the same. Thus, the sale was held on 19th December, 2005, in which one Mr. Chidhamara manickam, respondent No.3 herein was declared as the highest bidder who had quoted a sum of Rs.42,51,000/-(Rupees Forty-Two Lacs Fifty-One Thousand Only). He also deposited 25% of the sale consideration immediately, as per the rules. On 2nd January, 2006, the appellants approached the respondent bank and deposited three cheques for total sum of Rs. 25,21,446/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs Twenty-One Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Six Only). These cheques were duly returned by the respondent bank on 4th February, 2006 as it could not be treated as a valid tender.
5. The highest bidder (respondent No.3) in the meantime had complied with all the terms and conditions of sale as a result of which the sale was confirmed in his favour. In that, he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 42,51,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Lacs Fifty-One Thousand Only) by 4th January, 2006. On payment of sale consideration, the respondent bank credited a sum of Rs. 12,40,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Forty Thousand Only) in the loan account of appellant No. 2 herein and a sum of Rs. 12,52,350/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Fifty-Two Thousand T
B. Arvind Kumar vs. Govt. of India and Others
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Narandas Karsondas vs. S.A. Kamtam and Another
Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Others
Dwarika Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
J. Rajiv Subramaniyan and Another vs. Pandiyas and Others
T. Ravi and Another vs. B. Chinna Narasimha and Others
Kirpal Kaur vs. Jitender Pal Singh and Others
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.