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

2024 Supreme(SC) 1187

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Celir LLP – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158-159 of 2024 In Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023 with M.A. NOS. 600-601 of 2024 In Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023
Decided on : 13-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR Mr. Sachindra Karn, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Krushi Barfiwala, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sarthi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Vutts, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Mohite, Adv. Ms. Divyanshu Gupta, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Singh, Adv. Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. A M Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devdutt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Sanam Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Batra, Adv. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arushi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv. Mr. Angad Pahal, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumeet Lal, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Masoom Shah, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Ms. A.m. Harsavardhini, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Ray Sark

The right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act extinguishes upon the publication of the auction notice, and auction proceedings cannot be challenged post-confirmation unless fraud or collusion is proven.

Headnote:(A) SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 13(8) - Right of redemption - The court held that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset extinguishes upon the publication of the auction notice, and the High Court erred in permitting redemption after the auction notice was published. (Paras 30, 221)

(B) Contempt of Court - Definition - The court emphasized that wilful disobedience to a court order constitutes contempt, and actions aimed at circumventing court decisions undermine judicial authority. (Paras 182, 200)

Facts of the case:
The borrower defaulted on a loan, leading to the bank auctioning the secured asset. The borrower attempted to redeem the mortgage after the auction notice was published, which was challenged in court. The court ultimately ruled that the auction was valid and confirmed the sale to the successful bidder. (Paras 4-30)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the auction proceedings and confirmed the sale, directing the borrower to cancel the release deed and hand over possession to the bank. (Paras 221-224)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the auction process and the borrower’s right to redeem the mortgage post-auction notice. (Paras 109-110)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right of redemption is extinguished upon the publication of the auction notice, and the auction proceedings were valid. (Paras 30, 221)

Result: The sale certificate was issued to the successful bidder, and the borrower was directed to comply with the court's orders regarding possession and cancellation of the release deed. (Paras 221-224)

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: -

INDEX

A.

FACTUAL MATRIX

i.

Facts leading upto the Decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542- 5543 of 2023

ii.

Developments during the pendency of Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023

iii.

Subsequent Developments and the Acts alleged to be in contempt thereof.

B.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

i.

Submissions of the Successful Auction Purchaser/the petitioner.

ii.

Submissions of the Borrower/the respondent no. 1

iii.

Submissions of the Subsequent Transferee/respondent nos. 2 & 4

iv.

Submissions of the Bank/the respondent no. 3.

C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

D.

ANALYSIS

i.

Concept of Abuse of Process of Court and Collateral challenge to judgments that have attained finality

a.

The Decision of this Court in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors & Ors. (2023 INSC 838) and the Scope of challenge before it

b.

The ‘Henderson’ Principle as a corollary of Constructive Res- Judicata.

ii.

Applicability of Lis Pendens in the absence of any registration as required under the State Amendment to Section 52 of the TPA

iii.

Whether any contempt is said to have been committed by the respondents herein?

iv.

Circumstances when a sale of property by auction or other means under the SARFAESI Act may be set-aside after its confirmation.

E.

FINAL ORDER

1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned petitions are same and the parties are also the same, they were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The present petitions have been filed under Section 2(B) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (for short, the “Act, 1971”) read with Article(s) 129 and 142(2) of the Constitution respectively seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 of 2023 respectively captioned as ‘Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai)’.

3. For the sake of convenience, we clarify that the petitioner herein is the successful auction purchaser, the respondent no. 1, Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna is the original borrower (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Original Borrower’), the respondent no. 4 ‘Greenscape IT Park LLP’ and its director, Mr. Jayesh A. Vavia i.e., the respondent no. 2 herein are the subsequent transferee/third- party purchaser (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Subsequent Transferee’) and the respondent no. 3, ‘Union Bank of India’ is the secured creditor/bank (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’).

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

i. Facts leading upto the Decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542- 5543 of 2023.

4. The Original Borrower herein had availed credit facility from the Bank. Accordingly, the Bank on 03.07.2017 sanctioned Lease Rental Discounting (for short, ‘the LRD’) credit facility to the tune of Rs. 100 crore in favour of the Borrowers. The Bank vide its letter dated 02.01.2020 further sanctioned an additional amount of Rs. 6.77 Crore towards the said LRD term loan.

5. Against the aforesaid term loan, a simple mortgage was created over a parcel of land admeasuring 16200 sq. metres having buildings and ancillary structures on it at plot Nos. D-105, D 110 and D-111 respectively situated at the Trans Thane Creek Industrial Area MIDC Village Shirwane, Thane, Belapur Road, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the “Secured Asset”) belonging to the Borrower vide a Mortgage Deed dated 28.01.2020 in lieu of the sanctioned credit.

6. The Borrower defaulted in repayment of the said loan amount and accordingly on 31.03.2021 the Borrower’s LRD Term Loan Account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

7. The Bank on 07.06.2021 issued a demand notice under Section 13 sub- section (2) of the

    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 telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top