Back
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
Meena Jha – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of validity of delayed auction purchase under sarfaesi. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual history regarding mortgage, loan default, and failed bid procedures. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. mandatory nature of rule 9(3) and 9(4) of si rules regarding payment timelines. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. bank's duty to act per sarfaesi; no waiver for default through negligence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. requirement of clean hands and exhausting alternative statutory remedies. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final adjudication dismissing the writ petition. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
The moot question
1. The question that falls for determination is whether the writ petition filed in the year 2020 by the auction purchaser who had participated in an auction sale of the immovable property of the secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) in the year 2011 but failed to pay the deposit of 25% of the sale price as required under Rule 9(3) or pay the balance within the time frame under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2
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....
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
The SARFAESI Act mandates strict adherence to auction payment timelines, allowing forfeiture of deposits for non-compliance.
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.
The SARFAESI Act mandates exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226; procedural compliance is essential, and the auction process cannot be set aside absent s....
The auction sale of secured assets was invalid due to violations of statutory procedures, including failure to obtain separate valuations and selling below the reserve price.
Point of Law - Rule 15 of Schedule II Part I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the first place it will have to be stated that a reading of the said Rule does not in any way conflict with either Section....
The court held that when a statute provides specific remedies, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised, affirming the precedence of statutory procedures over equitable remedies.
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
