SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 710

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Authorised Officer, State Bank Of India - Appellant
Versus
C. Natarajan & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2545 Of 2023 (Arising Out Of SLP(C) No.14896 Of 2018)
Decided On : 10-04-2023

Headnote:SARFAESI Act - Auction Sale - Rule 9(2), (3), (4) and (5) Summary:

Fact of the Case:

The Authorized Officer of the State Bank of India impugned a judgment allowing a writ petition by a contesting respondent who failed to pay the balance amount for an auctioned asset, resulting in forfeiture.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Authorized Officer's exercise of power was not arbitrary and that the High Court erred in directing a refund as there was no unjust enrichment for the bank.

Issues:

Whether the power of forfeiture was exercised arbitrarily, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the forfeiture order.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that while discretion exists for time extension, it must be exercised reasonably. It emphasized that sub-rule (5) of rule 9 provides for forfeiture and should not be lightly interfered with unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Final Decision:

The court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, finding no unjust enrichment for the bank.

JUDGMENT :

(Dipankar Datta, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. The Authorized Officer (for brevity “the Authorized Officer”, hereafter) of the State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu (for brevity “the Bank”, hereafter) has impugned the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2018 of the Madras High Court allowing a writ petition (W.P. No.4519 of 2018) instituted by the contesting respondent herein.

3. The facts leading to institution of the writ petition, as recorded in the impugned judgment and order, are noticed hereunder:

    a. Default was committed by M/s Stallion Knitwear India Private Limited (for brevity “Stallion”, hereafter) in discharging its debts to the Bank. Consequent upon classification of its account as non-performing asset, the Authorized Officer had taken possession of the secured asset (being the plant and machinery of Stallion) as a measure under section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “the SARFAESI Act”, hereafter). Thereafter, e-auction notice dated 22nd August, 2007 was issued by the Authorized Officer putting up the plant and machinery of Stallion for sale. The contesting respondent had participated in the e-auction held on 15th September, 2017 by depositing requisite earnest money. Having quoted a sum of Rs. 1,23,00,000/-, which exceeded the reserve price by Rs. 1,00,000/-, he was declared the highest bidder. Inclusive of the earnest money deposit, the petitioner paid Rs. 30,75,000/-towards 25% of the sale price by RTGS on 15th September, 2017 itself, and was under advice to pay the balance 75% thereof, i.e., Rs. 92,25,000/-, on or before 29th September, 2017.

    b. The contesting respondent failed to arrange requisite funds and by a request letter dated 27th September, 2017, sought for extension of time to pay the balance of amount within 25 days. Acceding to such request, the Authorized Officer, on the following day, extended the time for payment till 23rd October, 2017. Two weeks prior to the extended last date for making payment of the balance amount, the contesting respondent received summons dated 10th October, 2017 from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore (for brevity “the DRT”, hereafter), intimating him that Stallion having filed an application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act had applied for interim relief, which was set down for hearing on 6th November, 2017. Having learnt of pendency of proceedings before the DRT, the contesting respondent met the Authorized Officer who assured the contesting respondent of appropriate care to be taken to contest such proceedings. Hearing such assurance and while referring to the summons received from the DRT, the contesting respondent by his letter dated 20th October, 2017 prayed for further extension of time by 15 days to pay the balance amount. The request of the contesting respondent was rejected by the Authorized Officer by his letter dated 21st October, 2017 and the contesting respondent was advised to make payment of the balance amount on or before 23rd October, 2017. Since the contesting respondent did not pay the balance amount of the sale price by 23rd October, 2017, the Authorized Officer sent a letter dated 24th October, 2017 to the contesting respondent informing him that the e-auction sale held on 15th September, 2017, which was concluded in his favour, stands cancelled and that the amount of Rs. 30,75,000/-paid by him forfeited.

    c. The contesting respondent, seeking to intervene in the proceedings before the DRT, had applied for advancement of the date of hearing of the application under section 17. He also applied for extension of time to deposit the balance amount till the disposal of the interim application filed before the DRT by Stallion. DRT advanced the hearing date from 6th November, 2017 to 31st October, 2017. An order dated 31st October, 2017 was also passed directing the Authorized Officer to maintain status quo an

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top