SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Indian Overseas Bank – Appellant
Versus
M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4750 of 2021
Decided On : 18-05-2022
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 10, 14(1)(c) and 238 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13(4) – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Rules 8 and 9 – Auction sale of secured asset – Once CIRP is commenced, there is complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by Corporate Debtor in respect of its property – IBC is a complete Code in itself and in view of provisions of Section 238 of IBC, provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force – Present case arises out of a statutory sale – Sale would be governed by Rules 8 and 9 of Rules – Sale would be complete only when auction purchaser makes entire payment and authorised officer, exercising power of sale, shall issue a certificate of sale of property in favour of purchaser in Form given in Appendix V to Rules – Appellant Bank could not have continued proceedings under SARFAESI Act once CIRP was initiated and moratorium was ordered – No case is made out for interfering with concurrent orders passed by NCLT and NCLAT – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 24, 27, 32, 35, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the judgment dated 26th March 2021 passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NCLAT) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 736 of 2020, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant Indian Overseas Bank, which was in turn filed challenging the order dated 15th July 2020 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (NCLT”) in I.A. No.832 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 601/10/HDB/2018, vide which NCLT had allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 herein, former Managing Director of respondent No.1 herein M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”) and set aside the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
Findings of Court:
Present case arises out of a statutory sale. The sale would be governed by Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules. The sale would be complete only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and authorised officer, exercising the power of sale, shall issue a certificate of sale of the property in favour of purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V to the said Rules.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
The sale of secured assets is considered complete when the full payment has been received and the sale certificate has been issued, confirming the transfer of ownership to the purchaser (!) (!) . In statutory sales, such as those under the SARFAESI Act, the sale becomes absolute once the sale certificate is issued, even if the entire consideration has not yet been paid, provided that the parties' intentions support this transfer (!) (!) (!) .
During insolvency proceedings under the IBC, the completion of a sale is governed by the provisions of the Code, which override other laws. The sale is deemed finalized only when the full consideration is paid and the sale is formally confirmed through the issuance of a sale certificate (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Partial payments made after the initiation of insolvency proceedings do not affect the validity of a sale that was properly conducted, as the key factors remain full payment and the issuance of the sale certificate, which signifies ownership transfer (!) (!) .
In summary, the sale is complete upon full payment and issuance of the sale certificate, which transfers ownership to the buyer. Once insolvency proceedings and the associated moratorium are in effect, further enforcement actions are barred, and the sale must follow the prescribed statutory procedures to be recognized as valid.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 26th March 2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the NCLAT”) in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 736 of 2020, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant-Indian Overseas Bank, which was in turn filed challenging the order dated 15th July 2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the NCLT”) in I.A. No. 832 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 601/10/HDB/2018, vide which the learned NCLT had allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein, former Managing Director of the respondent No. 1 herein-M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”) and set aside the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
2. The facts in brief, giving rise to filing of the present appeal, are as under:
The appellant Bank had extended certain credit facilities to the Corporate Debtor. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the dues and the loan account of the Corporate Debtor became irregular. As such, on 13th June 2016, the loan account of the Corporate Debtor came to be classified as “Non-Performing Asset” (NPA).
3. The appellant Bank issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI Act”), calling upon the Corporate Debtor and its guarantors to repay the outstanding amount due to the appellant Bank. Since the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the Demand Notice and repay the outstanding dues, the appellant Bank took symbolic possession of two secured assets mortgaged exclusively with it. The same was done by the appellant Bank in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”). One of the said properties stood in the name of Corporate Debtor and the other in the name of Corporate Guarantor. An E-auction notice came to be issued on 27th September 2018 by the appellant Bank to recover the public money availed by the Corporate Debtor.
4. In the meantime, on 22nd October 2018, the Corporate Debtor filed a petition being CP(IB) No. 601/10/HDB/2018 under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the IBC”) before the learned NCLT. In the first E-auction held on 6th November 2018, no bids were received. As such, the second E-auction notice came to be issued on 27th November 2018, which was scheduled to be held on 12th December 2018. In the second E-auction, three persons became successful bidders by offering jointly a price of Rs. 32.92 crore for both the secured assets. On 13th December 2018, the sale was confirmed in favour of the successful bidders/auction purchasers in the public auction. The successful bidders deposited 25% of the bid amount, i.e. Rs. 8.23 crore including the Earnest Money Deposit of the said amount and the appellant Bank issued a sale certificate to them. The auction purchasers were directed to pay the balance 75% of the bid amount within 15 days, i.e. prior to 28th December 2018.
5. It appears that the auction purchasers, on 28th December 2018, addressed a letter to the appellant Bank seeking handing over of peaceful and vacant possession of the secured assets and also prayed for extension of time to pay the balance 75% of the bid amount till 8th March 2019. The request made by the auction purchasers was accepted by the appellant Bank on 29th December 2018. It is the case of the appellant Bank that in exercise of its powers under Rule 9(4)(a) of the said Rules, it extended the period till 8th March 2019 for payment of the balance 75% of the bid amount.
6. The learned NCLT, vide order dated 3rd January 2019, admitted the petition filed by the ex-
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Another
B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Others
Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal and Another
S. Karthik and Others v. N. Subhash Chand Jain and Others
Anand Rao Korada, Resolution Professional v. Varsha Fabrics Private Limited and Others
Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited
Auction sale of secured asset – Once CIRP is commenced, there is complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by Corporate Debtor in respect of i....
The court ruled that once insolvency proceedings are initiated, actions under the SARFAESI Act to enforce security interests are barred, reinforcing the IBC's primacy in insolvency resolution.
The ownership of a secured asset is retained until a sale certificate is issued, and the interim moratorium under the IBC prevents transfer of possession.
Interim moratorium under IBC Section 96 does not bar SARFAESI sale certificate or possession if auction notice published, auction held, and sale confirmed before Section 94 filing, as guarantor's rig....
Auction sale confirmed pre-CIRP becomes absolute under Income-tax Act Second Schedule Rule 63; title passes on confirmation, not sale certificate issuance; moratorium under IBC Section 14 does not af....
The auction sale of secured assets was invalid due to violations of statutory procedures, including failure to obtain separate valuations and selling below the reserve price.
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.