IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda, JJ.
Sri. M. Hari Prasad Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India and another – Respondents
Writ Petition No.21823 of 2020
Decided On : 07-06-2022
SARFAESI Act - Confirmation of Sale - Rule 9 (4) of the SARFAESI Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in an e-auction for a property under the SARFAESI Act. Despite depositing 25% of the sale price, the petitioner did not receive the confirmation of sale. The respondent alleged that the petitioner did not comply with the payment condition and forfeited the amount already paid. The petitioner contended that the sale confirmation letter was never received and was ready to pay the balance sale price.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the sale confirmation letter could not have been issued before the expiry of the stay order granted by the Tribunal. The Court also noted that the petitioner promptly deposited the balance 75% of the sale price after the Court's direction. The Court held that the petitioner should not be burdened with additional interest or payment of any further amount.
Issues: Non-receipt of sale confirmation letter, Compliance with payment condition, Forfeiture of amount, Effect of stay order on sale confirmation
Ratio Decidendi: The sale confirmation letter could not have been issued before the expiry of the stay order. The petitioner's prompt deposit of the balance sale price after the Court's direction demonstrated good faith. The petitioner should not be burdened with additional interest or payment of any further amount.
Final Decision: The Court directed the respondent to issue the sale certificate to the petitioner within 15 days and take necessary steps for registration. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Mr.C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Ch.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to issue confirmation of sale after withdrawing letters dated 08.10.2020 as well as 13.10.2020.
3. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner is engaged in software business with interest to make investment in real estate. Respondent No.1 issued e-auction sale notice dated 22.01.2020 for sale of the schedule properties. It may be mentioned that the schedule properties were furnished as security for the loans availed of by respondent No.2. As respondent No.2 committed default in repayment of loan, respondent No.1 invoked provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly ‘the SARFAESI Act’ hereinafter) and consequently issued the e-auction sale notice. There were three schedule properties i.e. Lot ‘A’, Lot ‘B’ and Lot ‘C’.
4. Petitioner was interested in Lot ‘A’ property for which the reserve price was fixed at Rs.7,21,82,000-00 and Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was fixed at Rs.72,25,000-00.
5. As per the condition in the e-auction sale notice, petitioner deposited the EMD of Rs.72,25,000-00 on 24.02.2020 and participated in the online auction on 27.02.2020. Petitioner was declared as the highest bidder in respect of Lot ‘A’ property at his bid amount of Rs.9,17,57,000-00. Accordingly, petitioner’s bid was accepted and was declared as the successful bidder for Lot ‘A’ schedule property. In terms of the conditions of sale, petitioner deposited Rs.1,57,14,250-00 on 28.02.2020 which together with the EMD of Rs.72,25,000-00 deposited on 24.02.2020 amounted to 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.2,29,39,250-00.
6. Petitioner was waiting for the letter of confirmation of sale as he was informed that he would have to pay the balance 75% of the sale price within 15 days of receipt of the letter of confirmation of sale.
7. According to the petitioner, despite payment of 25% of the sale price, he did not receive letter of confirmation. When he enquired with the first respondent about the delay in issuing the letter of confirmation of sale, petitioner was informed that respondent No.2 had filed Securitization Application No.37 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (Tribunal) wherein it had obtained an order dated 25.02.2020 staying confirmation of sale subject to depositing 15% of the total outstanding dues in three installments. Bank had informed the petitioner that respondent No.2 had paid Rs.1,74,42,408-00 being the first installment in terms of order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal and that the sale would be confirmed if respondent No.2 committed default in payment of the other two installments.
8. Petitioner has stated that he has not been informed about the developments in respect of S.A.No.37 of 2020 filed by the second respondent. However, petitioner continued to approach respondent No.1 for issuance of sale confirmation to enable him to pay the balance sale price. However, respondent No.1 never informed the petitioner of any such development. On the contrary, respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 29.08.2020 alleging that on 27.03.2020 sale confirmation was sent to the petitioner but petitioner did not comply with the condition of payment of 75% of sale price within 15 days of receipt of the said letter dated 27.03.2020. Therefore, the amount already paid by the petitioner would be forfeited.
9. Petitioner replied on 10.09.2020 stating that he had not received any letter from respondent No.1, much less, the letter dated 27.03.2020 and that he was ready to pay the balance sale price of 75% within 15 days of receipt of the letter of sale confirmation. Respondent No.1 was requested to withdraw the letter dated 29.08.2020.
1
AI
The Court emphasized that the sale confirmation letter could not have been issued before the expiry of the stay order and held that the petitioner should not be burdened with additional interest or p....
The court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions and ensuring that orders and directions are issued in accordance with the law, while also considering the bona fides of the ....
Point of Law : It is settled proposition that an order of the Court should cause prejudice to none. In view of the stay granted by this Court, which continues till today, no blame can be laid at door....
A loan classified as Non-Performing Asset must adhere to criteria set by the Reserve Bank of India; effective alternative remedies must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.
The extended period for payment after an auction sale should exclude the duration of any stay order, and the threat of forfeiture of deposit should consider the impact of any stay order.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements is imperative in mortgage auctions; failures may invalidate the sale, preserving the mortgagor's right of redemption until formal sale registration.
A Sale Certificate issued by a third party assignee in contravention of a restraint order is void ab initio and cannot be given effect to.
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.