Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.SUNDAR, P.DHANABAL
Dinakar Trading Company Represented by its Proprietor – Appellant
Versus
J.Sekar – Respondent
Key Points: - The court addressed whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction given bar under SARFAESI sections 14 and 34. (!) - It held that Section 34 does not bar a civil suit for possession where the sale deed and related transactions occurred during pendency of mortgage proceedings, and that the suit is maintainable. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses that sales executed during mortgage proceedings and transfers via Power of Attorney were void and that the plaintiff-bona fide auction purchaser retains rights to possession, despite challenges to earlier transfers. (!) (!) (!) - It covers the consequences of deposit of 25% bid amount and the entitlement to possession or sale confirmation, including that mere deposit does not automatically discharge the mortgage; the court preserved rights to credit amounts to the mortgagor. (!) (!) - The decision clarifies that the SARFAESI Act does not prevent a civil suit for recovery of possession of property by a purchaser where the sale is found void due to mortgage, and affirms the plaintiff's right to possession. (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of parties and reliefs sought. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts leading to the disputes regarding the properties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial views on the maintainability of the suit. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. arguments regarding the validity of the sale and jurisdiction issues. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. court’s reasoning on jurisdiction as per sarfaesi act. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. analysis of evidence regarding ownership rights and mortgage. (Para 26 , 27 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final determination upholding the earlier judgment. (Para 32) |
| 8. dismissal of appeals and closure of connected petitions. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
The above Original Side Appeals have been preferred by M/s.Dinakar Trading Company, the 2nd defendant, and defendants 5 and 6, respectively, as against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 04.10.2019 in C.S.No.1134 of 2008. While the Appeal in O.S.A.No.22 of 2020 is preferred by the 2nd defendant in the suit, the Appeal in O.S.A.No.25 of 2020 is preferred by defendants 5 and 6 in the suit.
2.The 1st respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit in C.S.No.1134 of 2008 for the following reliefs :
“[a] for a declaration declaring that the sale
Court held that transactions made during the subsistence of a mortgage are void under the SARFAESI Act; the auction purchaser's rights were upheld despite challenges to the validity of earlier transf....
Sales executed after taking possession under the SARFAESI Act are void, affirming the authority of civil courts in possession disputes involving third parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on civil court jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and the duty of the court to scrutinize allegations of fraud and co....
Application against measures to recover secured debts – Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted. However, Civil Courts have to be extremely cautious while granting any interim order ....
A secured creditor retains rights over a property until actual possession is transferred, despite a sale certificate being issued to an auction buyer, as affirmed by the court.
A sale deed remains valid despite non-payment of the entire sale consideration if the intention to transfer ownership is evident.
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
