Back
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Nishant Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant petition is directed against a communication dated 13.02.2024 issued by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank to the petitioner stating that 25% of the sale price i.e., Rs.30.03 lakh deposited by him, has been forfeited, as he had failed to deposit the remaining 75% of the sale price within fifteen days i.e., by 11. 01.2024 from the date of confirmation of sale.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant petition are as follows:
The extension of the time limit for depositing the remaining sale amount and the forfeiture of the deposit are governed by the agreement between the purchaser and the secured creditor, and judicial r....
The SARFAESI Act mandates strict adherence to auction payment timelines, allowing forfeiture of deposits for non-compliance.
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....
Forfeiture of EMD under Rule 9 of SARFAESI Rules is impermissible during a binding judicial stay, as it violates natural justice and can lead to unjust enrichment.
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.
Writ court declines jurisdiction over SARFAESI auction disputes with factual issues; directs to DRT under Section 17.
Forfeiture of 25% bid amount under SARFAESI Rules 9(5) is mandatory on default, unaffected by higher subsequent sale or absence of loss; equity cannot override statutory provision. (28 words)
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
