Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Anil Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 d
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.
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....
Recovery of debt – Mortgaged property cannot be put to auction sale without affording 30 days’ time to petitioner to clear demand.
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
