Back
D. V. S. S. SOMAYAJULU, DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Debt Recovery Tribunal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J. - Writ Petition No.14396 of 2023 is filed questioning the inaction for passing orders in S.A.No.149 of 2023, particularly the vacate stay petition, which has not been heard and the delay that is occurring in the disposal of the case. The further question raised is about the direction for payment of 10 monthly installments contrary to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act")
2. The connected Writ Petition No.15220 of 2023 is filed by the auction purchaser questioning the inaction of the respondent bank in not receiving the balance sale consideration.
3. With the consent of all the learned counsel the matter was taken up for hearing. The facts are not seriously in dispute. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.14396 of 2023 was issued a notice under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and they brought to sale a particular property. The amount outstanding as on 31/10/2021 is Rs.4, 53, 38, 599.00 along with interest from 1/11/2021 and other charges etc. The auction notice was issued on 20/2/2023. The 5th respondent in this writ petition, who is the writ petiti
The Court emphasized the need for reasons in an order, the safeguarding of the interests of innocent third parties, and the compliance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the disposal of cases....
The extended period for payment after an auction sale should exclude the duration of any stay order, and the threat of forfeiture of deposit should consider the impact of any stay order.
The SARFAESI Act mandates strict adherence to auction payment timelines, allowing forfeiture of deposits for non-compliance.
The Tribunal must consider merits and apply due diligence in SARFAESI Act proceedings, treating them like civil suits, to ensure fair adjudication.
(1) Auction sale of secured asset – Validity of auction is not to be tested on equitable considerations but strictly on the touchstone of governing statutory regime.(2) Auction sale of secured asset ....
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....
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 court emphasized the importance of following the procedure under the SARFAESI Act for the sale of property and upheld the applicability of the limitation period.
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
