SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 154

UJJAL BHUYAN, A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
Bandi Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Alladi Ravinder.
For the Respondent: V. Dyumani.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petitioners were highest bidders in e-auction on 19.08.2020, deposited 25% (Rs. 21,68,750) on auction day, and were granted extension till 12.10.2020 for balance 75% (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Petitioners requested further time due to COVID-19, paid full balance (Rs. 86,75,000) on 14.12.2020, 25 days after extended period (!) (!) (!) . - Respondents refused sale certificate due to delay beyond 90 days under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 but had no objection to accepting full payment if court directed (!) (!) . - Rule 9(3) requires 25% payment on auction day; Rule 9(4) requires balance within 15 days of sale confirmation or agreed extension not exceeding 3 months (!) (!) . - Court took judicial notice of COVID-19 hardships, citing Supreme Court orders extending limitations till 28.02.2022 (!) (!) . - Court relaxed Rule 9(4) rigour due to extraordinary COVID-19 circumstances, prior court precedents, and respondents' non-opposition (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Court directed respondents to accept payment, issue sale certificate within 15 days, and register it (!) . - Writ petition disposed with no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed (!) (!) .

What is the court's authority to relax the time limit under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?


ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Insofar added respondent No. 4 (original borrower), he was duly served in terms of the order dated 21.02.2022. But for default, Court decided to proceed ex-parte against him by the aforesaid order.

2. It appears that respondent No. 4 was a borrower of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but defaulted in repayment of loan for which respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’).

3. In consequence of the above, respondent No. 2 issued sale notice for sale of the scheduled property on 03.08.2020. As per the sale notice, outstanding dues of the borrowers was quantified at Rs. 75,46,576.00. The reserve price of the schedule property was fixed at Rs. 86,25,000.00 and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) at Rs. 8,62,500.00.

4. E-auction was held on 19.08.2020 in which both the petitioners participated. In fact, petitioners were the highest bidders at their bid amount of Rs. 86,75,000.00. Petitioners deposited 25% of the bid amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top