IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Arun Kumar Jain And 3 Others – Appellants
Versus
Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal And 7 Others – Respondent
Writ C No. 10936 of 2014
Decided on : 22-08-2023
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2) and 13 (3A) - Business of cold storage - Credit facility from respondent bank - Failed to repay loan amount – Challenged - Whether 25% of sale amount shall be inclusive of earnest amount or not and whether in some circumstances, said amount could be deposited on next working day also and effect of amendment carried out in Rule 9(3) of Rules, 2002 (i.e. ‘Doctrine of Relation Back’) has any bearing in facts and circumstances of present case – Held, auction took place and as referred above, 25% of sale amount including earnest amount was paid by the auction purchasers (petitioners) on very next working day - According to SARFAESI Act, remaining 75% amount of sale price was to be deposited on or before - Time of 15 days is not sacrosanct since it could be extended - Though there was no written agreement, still delay has been explained and said delay has not prejudiced borrowers in any manner, since even during pendency of present writ petition, borrowers have failed to offer money - Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is being filed by auction purchasers being aggrieved by impugned order dated 19.11.2013 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Appeal No. R214 of 2013 whereby said appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed. By amendment, petitioners have also challenged the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in Securitization Application No. 153 of 2009.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. M/s Firozabad Cold Storage Ltd., its Managing Director and others, who are respondents no. 4 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as “borrowers”) have availed credit facility from the respondent bank (Bank of Baroda) sanctioned on 14.10.2005 for the business of cold storage.
3. The borrowers have failed to repay the loan amount, therefore, the respondent bank has issued a notice dated 06.04.2009 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”). The borrowers have submitted their reply on 01.06.2009 under Section 13 (3A) of SARFAESI Act.
4. The borrowers remained failed to repay the loan, therefore, a notice dated 13.09.2009 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and Rule (8) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “Rules”) was issued by the bank. Later on, an auction notice dated 14.11.2009 was published by the respondent bank for auction of property in question.
5. The borrowers have filed a S.A. No. 153 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad on 14.12.2009 challenging the notice dated 13.09.2009 i.e. a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and Rule 8(1) of Rules made therein.
6. The respondent bank took possession of property under auction on 23.09.2009 and auction sale was fixed on 16.12.2009, however, auction was not materialized on 16.12.2009.
7. During pendency of above referred S.A. No. 153 of 2009, the respondent bank has published a second auction notice on 05.07.2010 in newspapers, fixing 12.08.2010 for auction sale. The terms and conditions as mentioned in notice are reproduced hereinafter -:
| LFkku % vkxjk | |
National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India [(2003) 5 SCC 23]
SupremeToday
The SARFAESI Act mandates strict adherence to auction payment timelines, allowing forfeiture of deposits for non-compliance.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
Mandatory compliance with Rule 9(4) requires written agreement for extending balance payment beyond 15 days in e-auctions under SARFAESI Rules.
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....
Cheque deposit of 25% bid amount violates mandatory R.9(3) SARFAESI Rules requiring immediate cash; sale confirmation during interim order is nullity.
Order of the Tribunal it is not discernible as to whether any application for condonation of delay was filed or how the Tribunal dealt with the belated approach of the borrowers.
(1) Auction sale of secured asset – Validity of auction is not to be tested on equitable considerations but strictly on the touchstone of governing statutory regime.(2) Auction sale of secured asset ....
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.