IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Chief Manager/Authorised Officer, M/S State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
V.H.Mohamed Basher – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT ,1958, by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.20391 of 2023, challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed in that writ petition.
2. The respondents participated in the auction sale of the immovable property of M/s.Pushpa Diams, conducted by the appellant, invoking the provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ in short). They successfully bid at the auction for a sum of Rs.1,11,10,000/- and as stipulated deposited Rs.28,10,000/-, which is inclusive of the EMD, being 25% of the purchase price. The balance sale consideration of Rs.83,00,000/- has to be remitted by the respondents on or before 19.12.2021, i.e., within 15 days from the date of the sale confirmation. But the respondents could not remit the balance sale price within the stipulated time of 15 days. On 28.02.2022, the respondents requested the appellant to grant two months more time for payment of the balance sale price. But, by the letter dated 05.04.2022, the appellant informed the respondents that the e- auction sale held on 04.1
The court reaffirmed that failure to pay the balance purchase price within the specified time results in automatic forfeiture of the deposit, as mandated by the applicable rules.
The court upheld the forfeiture of a deposit by a bank as permissible under Rule 9(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, due to the petitioner's default in timely payment.
The SARFAESI Act mandates strict adherence to auction payment timelines, allowing forfeiture of deposits for non-compliance.
Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Act mandates forfeiture of earnest money for non-payment of the balance auction price, overriding general contract law principles.
The court affirmed that banks must comply with statutory requirements and not engage in arbitrary actions against successful auction bidders, protecting rights under Article 14.
Rule 9(5) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is directory in nature, and forfeiture is justified only to compensate for the pa....
Failure to comply with mandatory statutory provisions requiring the immediate deposit of a percentage of the auction sale price results in the forfeiture of the purchaser's claims. Such failures cann....
The court established that the time for deposit under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is extendable with mutual consent, and unilateral cancellation by the bank was unjus....
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....
Setting aside auction sale – Mere typographical error due to inadvertence which has not caused any prejudice to borrowers, that in itself could not be considered to be ground to annul process held by....
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.