Back
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Avlokan Commosales Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner no.1 participated in an auction sale held by the respondent no.1-State Bank of India (SBI). The SBI initially did not execute any Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner no.1. Upon repeated communications by the petitioners in that regard, the petitioners sought for refund of the consideration money paid by them for such sale. The Bank initially took a stand in writing that the concerned Tribunal, that is, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-1, Kolkata, in its order dated August 7, 2018 passed in SA No.168 of 2018, had directed the Bank not to issue Sale Certificate and that no further steps shall be taken till hearing the disposal of the SA. By such communication dated October 12, 2018, the Bank further wrote to the petitioners that since the petitioners had requested the refund of the bid amount along with interest and other charges with compensation, the matter was sub judice before the DRT and shall be put up before the said Forum to seek appropriate direction.
2. Upon the petitioner no.1 writing a further letter on December 31, 2019, reiterating the petitioners claim for refund of the bid amount, totalling Rs.55,19,250/- along with interest at the
A Sale Certificate issued by a third party assignee in contravention of a restraint order is void ab initio and cannot be given effect to.
Auction sale under SARFAESI Act upheld; simultaneous civil proceedings do not invalidate the completed transaction, and allegations of undervaluation found unsubstantiated.
The duty of the authorized officer to disclose material defects in the property's title overrides the defense of selling the property 'as is where is'. However, after a change in the fundamental scen....
The duty of the bank to disclose encumbrances and material defects in the title of the auctioned property, as mandated by Rule 8(6)(f) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and the requ....
A seller in a property auction must disclose encumbrances; failure to do so can lead to liability, but changed circumstances may alter obligations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative remedy, based on the peculiar facts of the case....
A bank cannot proceed with auction proceedings after issuing a one-time settlement proposal unless it has revoked the proposal and the acceptance period has expired.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative statutory remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, especially when the petitioner is already a party to ....
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
