Back
Varghese P. – Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank – Respondent
ORDER :
V.G. Arun, J.
The revision petitioner is the auction purchaser of the immovable property sold in execution of the decree in O.S.No.178 of 2008 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Payyannur. The first respondent herein is the creditor and the second respondent, the principal debtor. The property was brought to sale on 18.01.2020 as per the order in E.P.No.83 of 2011. The petitioner auctioned the property for Rs. 4,26,000/- and deposited 25% of the auction amount, i.e, Rs. 1,06,500/- on the same day. According to the petitioner, he was given the impression that the balance amount of Rs. 3,19,500/- could be deposited within one month of sale. When the petitioner approached the court for depositing the balance amount on 18.02.2020, he was informed that the balance amount ought to have been deposited within 15 days of the sale. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application before the execution court, seeking refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 1,06,500/-. The court below having dismissed the application, this revision petition is filed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not mandatory for the execution court to forfeit the amount deposited in all cases.
The auction purchaser's failure to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time results in forfeiture of the deposit, with no provision for refund under the CPC.
The mandatory provisions of CPC regarding auction sales do not allow for extension of time to deposit the remaining purchase money, but the court may return the deposit after deducting expenses.
The court ruled that failure to deposit the mandatory 25% bid amount in a court auction renders the sale void, necessitating a resale, and coercive measures against the auction purchaser are not perm....
Strict compliance with CPC provisions is mandatory; court delays can justify extensions for deposit payment.
An auction purchaser cannot claim ownership or additional payments until the auction sale is confirmed, and the 5% penalty only applies to actual amounts deposited as per CPC provisions.
The excess amount paid by the petitioner, beyond 25% of the bid amount, could not be considered as a deposit under Rule 9, and any retention of amount by the respondent without authority of law would....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the confirmation of sale by the secured creditor is essential, and in the absence of such confirmation, no default can be attributed to the bi....
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
