Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Anil Pathak and another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2228 of 2025
Decided on : 21-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.-Instructions provided by Sri Prakhar Shukla, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, be kept on record.
2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prakhar Shukla, holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The facts as pleaded in the writ petition indicate that House No. 24, Awas Vikas Colony Betiyahata, Gorakhpur, owned by Ujjwal Banka and Tushar Banka, was mortgaged against a loan amount of Rs. 1 Crore plus Rs. 20 Lakhs over draft.
4. The above mentioned loan amount, having not been repaid, respondent No. 3-Bank issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). Thereafter, a possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued, and a newspaper publication for auction of the above mentioned property was also made. The auction date was fixed on 23.10.2024 and the petitioners, being the only bidders were declared successful.
5. The petitioners deposited 25% of the auction money, amounting to Rs. 55,93,750/-, within the prescribed time period of 15 days. For depositing the balance 75% of the auction money, the petitioners applied for a loan from the respondent-Bank. The said application was rejected by the respondent-Bank on 3.1.2025. It is stated that although the petitioners have made a request for grant of three months' further time for depositing the balance 75% of the auction money, but the respondent-Bank is going to auction the property on 22.1.2025.
6. The petitioners have, accordingly, preferred the present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondent No. 3-Bank for granting three months' further time for depositing the balance 75% of the auction money, or to refund 25% amount deposited earlier, within a stipulated time period.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the afore-stated facts, to contend that the delay in depositing 75% of the auction money is mainly due to rejection of the loan application of the petitioners by the respondent-Bank, and accordingly, they have sought further three months' time for the purpose. It is submitted that the Bank is seeking to re-auction the property which would gravely prejudice their interests.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Writ-C No. 2196 of 2019 (Gaurav Garg v. Syndicate Bank and others), which was disposed of, following the judgment in the case of GM, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v. Sri Ikbal and others, (2013) 10 SCC 83.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that as per his instructions, the petitioners, who were declared highest bidders in the online auction held on 23.10.2024, upon having deposited 25% of the bid amount, were advised to deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount by 7.11.2024. However, considering their request vide letter dated 5.11.2024, the Bank granted extension of time till 6.12.2024. Thereafter, by means of another representation dated 2.12.2024, the petitioners sought further extension of time till 7.1.2025, stating their difficulty in arranging the funds. Considering the said request, the Bank further allowed extension of time for depositing of the remaining sale amount till 27.12.2024. It is stated that instead of depositing the balance sale amount within the extended time period, the petitioners submitted another representation on 22.12.2024, seeking further extension of time upto 7.2.2025.
10. It has been submitted that as per the request received from the petitioners vide representation dated 22.12.2024, the competent authority of the Bank had granted further extension of time till 23.1.2025, as final opportunity for depositing the remaining bala
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.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
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....
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.
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.
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....
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....
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
