IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Tushar Kanti Karmakar – Appellant
Versus
Shilabati Hospital Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. Dr. Tushar Kanti Karmakar, purchaser of mortgaged property and Secured Creditor, State Bank of India assailed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11th December, 2018 passed by Single Bench of this High Court in W.P. No. 11203(W) of 2010 (Shilabati Hospital Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.) by filing two separate appeals being MAT No. 56 of 2019 and MAT No. 118 of 2019 respectively.
2. By the said impugned judgment and order, the Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia, on the following terms:
“.... the Bank acted without jurisdiction in selling the immovable property concerned without adhering the Rule 8 (8)of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.
Rule 8 (8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is as follows:
“(8) Sale by any method other than public auction or public tender shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing.”
Rule 8 (8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 requires the Bank, to enter into an agreement, in writing with the parties affected by the property concerned, to allow the Bank to sell such property other than by means of a public auctio


Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar and Ors.
L&T Housing Finance Ltd. v. Trishul Developers and Anr.
PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank & Ors.
South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr.
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Ors. v. Dr. Manu and Anr.
General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Co operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Ikbal & Ors.
J. Rajiv Subramaniyan and Anr. v. Pandiyas and Ors.
Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited & Ors.
Keshavlal Jethalal Shah (2) Vs. Mohanlal Bhagwandas and Anr.
Virender Chaudhary Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Ors.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal Vs. Shelly Products and Anr.
Vasu P. Shetty Vs. Hotel Vandana Palace and Ors.
Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Bank Of India v. M/S Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Court ruled that non-compliance with SARFAESI rules voided sale; observed that the rights of borrowers can be waived through their conduct and failure to assert them timely.
The mortgagor's right of redemption under the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon publication of the auction notice.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
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.
The right to redeem mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished once the auction notice is published, indicating no entitlement to challenge the sale thereafter.
The right to redeem mortgaged property under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the publication of a sale notice, as amended in 2016.
Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rendered the writ petition not mainta....
The right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act extinguishes upon publication of an auction notice, and guarantees against the actions of secured creditors must follow established procedures before in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.