Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Celir LLP – Appellant
Versus
Sumati Prasad Bafna – Respondent
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 un | ||
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. Without explicit references to subsequent treatment such as overruling or reversal, it is not possible to definitively categorize any case as bad law from the given list. However, some cases involve principles that are well-established or are subject to ongoing judicial discussion, but no direct treatment as bad law is indicated.
Followed / Affirmed:
* Odisha State Financial Corporation VS Vigyan Chemical Industries - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1152: This case discusses the liability of the State Financial Corporation and emphasizes procedural compliance, a principle generally upheld.
* Guruswamy Nadar VS P. Lakshmi Ammal(D) through LRs. - 2008 3 Supreme 284: The application of lis pendens in specific performance suits and the effect of sale during lis pendens are well-established principles, suggesting adherence in subsequent rulings.
* PHR Invent Educational Society VS Uco Bank - 2024 3 Supreme 681: The principle that courts should not entertain writ petitions when effective remedies are available is a longstanding doctrine.
* B. Arvind Kumar VS Government of India. - 2007 4 Supreme 572: The treatment of auction sale and title transfer aligns with standard legal procedures, indicating continued adherence.
* T. Ravi VS B. Chinna Narasimha - 2017 3 Supreme 267: The principles regarding lis pendens and sale during pendency, including the binding effect on purchasers, are consistent with established law.
* Vasu P. Shetty VS Hotel Vandana Palace - 2014 4 Supreme 100: The mandatory nature of Rules 8 and 9 of Rules 2002 and the importance of mandatory notices are well-recognized.
* Murray And Company VS Ashok Kr. Newatia - 2000 1 Supreme 251: The guidelines on contempt and the necessity of interference with the due course of justice are consistent with judicial standards.
* Supertech Limited VS Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 1191: The finality of judgments and the prohibition on seeking modifications through miscellaneous applications are fundamental principles of judicial stability.
* B. Arvind Kumar VS Government of India. - 2007 4 Supreme 572: The auction sale and transfer procedures described are consistent with established legal practices.
Distinguished / Clarified:
* MANOJ KUMAR V K. vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45846, VIJESH DAS R. vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45848, SAIBUNNISA M.P. vs THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 43146, SHIBU.P.J., MOLY SHIBU vs THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46994, M/S. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Reserve Bank of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45576: These cases emphasize the principles of relitigation and fragmentation of causes of action, which are consistent with established procedural doctrines.
* Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. VS M. Prabhakar - 2011 3 Supreme 569, , Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. VS Ajay Kumar Agarwal - 2022 4 Supreme 529, State Bank of India VS Vijay Mallya - 2022 6 Supreme 450, , Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Etc. VS Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Etc. - 2017 3 Supreme 188, Sanjay Verma VS Manik Roy - 2006 8 Supreme 1007: These cases clarify procedural aspects, rights of parties, and statutory interpretations that align with existing legal standards.
* : The affirmation that timelines are directory unless specified otherwise is consistent with judicial practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.
* Phoenix ARC Private Limited VS Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir - 2022 1 Supreme 275, , Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Etc. VS Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Etc. - 2017 3 Supreme 188: Clarify procedural nuances and the importance of explicit directions or notices.
Criticized / Cited for Law Enforcement:
* Ashok Paper Kamgar Union VS Dharam Godha - 2003 6 Supreme 970: The explanation of contempt and the necessity of order enforceability is consistent with constitutional and statutory standards.
* Phoenix ARC Private Limited VS Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir - 2022 1 Supreme 275: The case emphasizes circumspection in stay orders and the importance of judicial caution.
* : The recognition of extensions during extraordinary circumstances reflects judicial flexibility but not a criticism.
* State Bank of India VS Vijay Mallya - 2022 6 Supreme 450: The case discusses consequences of contemptuous conduct, aligning with legal standards.
* T. Ravi VS B. Chinna Narasimha - 2017 3 Supreme 267: The detailed discussion on lis pendens and sale during litigation reflects established principles.
* Vasu P. Shetty VS Hotel Vandana Palace - 2014 4 Supreme 100: Reinforces mandatory procedural rules.
M/s.M.D. Esthappan vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32734: While it notes that high courts should refrain from interfering in SARFAESI proceedings, there is no indication of subsequent treatment or whether this principle has been overruled or criticized.
M.D. Esthappan vs Reserve Bank Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1838: Similar to the above, it affirms a procedural stance without indication of subsequent treatment.
ITC Limited VS Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. - 2018 2 Supreme 664: Discusses procedural obligations and the nature of relief under Article 226, but no evidence of subsequent treatment.
Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots Associations of India VS Director General of Civil Aviation - 2011 3 Supreme 621: Addresses executive orders and judicial review but lacks information on subsequent judicial treatment.
Jhareswar Prasad Paul VS Tarak Nath Ganguly - 2002 4 Supreme 349: Discusses the use of contempt powers, but no indication of overrule or criticism.
V. S. Palanivel VS P. Sriram, CS, Liquidator, Etc. - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 753: Affirms that timelines are directory unless otherwise specified, but no subsequent treatment is indicated.
, Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Etc. VS Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Etc. - 2017 3 Supreme 188, Sanjay Verma VS Manik Roy - 2006 8 Supreme 1007: These are procedural clarifications with no indication of subsequent treatment or overruling.
**Summary:**
Most cases in the list are described in terms consistent with longstanding legal principles, procedural rules, or clarifications, with no explicit indication of being overruled or treated as bad law. The absence of explicit subsequent treatment means none can be definitively categorized as bad law based solely on the provided data.
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 pro....
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
Point of Law - Rule 15 of Schedule II Part I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the first place it will have to be stated that a reading of the said Rule does not in any way conflict with either Section....
Order of the Tribunal it is not discernible as to whether any application for condonation of delay was filed or how the Tribunal dealt with the belated approach of the borrowers.
The mortgagor's right of redemption under the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon publication of the auction notice.
(1) Auction sale of secured asset – Unless and until a clear 30 days' notice is given to borrower, no sale or transfer can be resorted to by a secured creditor. Secured creditor cannot effect sale or....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 9(4) and 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, highlighting the requirement for the purchaser to pay ....
The borrower's right of redemption is extinguished upon the publication of the auction notice, allowing the auction purchaser to claim possession.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements is imperative in mortgage auctions; failures may invalidate the sale, preserving the mortgagor's right of redemption until formal sale registration.
The court established that the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the issuance of a sale certificate, and timely challenge to bank actions is essential.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
