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

2019 Supreme(Online)(All) 62

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sri Surya Mani Pandey, J
Rakesh Kumar Kaushal v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance and Another
Writ Petition | Article 226



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Surya Mani Pandey
For the Respondents: Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava

The bank must refund the auction amount to the purchaser due to failure to provide possession of the property, a duty it cannot evade by citing the 'as is where is' sale condition.

Headnote:(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Issues of auction purchaser claiming refund for failure to deliver possession of property - Essential obligations of banks regarding possession delivery and disclosure of encumbrances discussed - Provisions enable the bank to refund under specific circumstances. (Paras 3, 9, 12, 48)

(B) Auction procedure - Requirement of transparency and the bank's obligation to disclose defects in title to the purchaser emphasized - The 'as is where is' condition does not absolve the bank of its duty to disclose encumbrances. (Paras 36, 45)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an auction purchaser, paid Rs.60 lakhs for property under SARFAESI Act but failed to receive possession after more than 17 months due to undisclosed title defects, leading to a writ petition for refund and damages.

Findings of Court:
The bank failed to deliver possession despite the auction sale being finalized and must refund the auction amount with interest due to procedural non-compliance, along with costs.

Issues: 1) The maintainability of the writ petition when an alternate remedy exists under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act. 2) The obligation of the bank to deliver vacant possession despite 'as is where is' sale notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held the bank is responsible for disclosing encumbrances and cannot ignore its duty by imposing a purchase condition. The court ruled the petitioner, having complied fully with auction requirements, is entitled to a refund and damages due to the bank's inaction.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for auction property possession (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of auction process and payment by petitioner (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petitioner's argument on title defect and non-delivery (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. bank's refund policy regarding possession delays (Para 9 , 14)
5. procedural obligations of the bank post-auction (Para 13 , 15)
6. jurisdiction and maintainability under the sarfaesi act (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. role of drt in auction purchaser's grievance (Para 19 , 20)
8. obligations under sarfaesi act rules regarding auction process (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. responsibility of the bank to deliver possession (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. bank's alternative remedy arguments (Para 27 , 28)
11. distinguishing facts from precedent case (Para 29 , 30)
12. rejection of alternate remedy argument (Para 31 , 32)
13. interpretation of auction terms and responsibilities (Para 33 , 34)
14. importance of transparency in auction processes (Para 35 , 36)
15. bank's duty to disclose encumbrances (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
16. petitioner’s entitlement to possession claims after payment (Para 40 , 41)
17. bank's lack of response to requests for possession (Para 42 , 43)
18. entitlement to refund after failure to deliver possession (Para 44 , 46)
19. conclusion directing refund of auction price (Para 47)

1. Heard Sri Surya Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

2. Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution has sought indulgence of this court for a direction to the respondent no. 2 (Authorised officer / Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sultanpur Branch, to refund the entire amount of Rs.60,00,000/-(Rupees 60 Lacs) with 18% interest and Rs.15 lakhs (rupees fifteen lakh) as damages.

3. In brief, the conspectus of the controversy emanates from the fact that the petitioner, who is an auction - purchaser of secured assets auctioned by the Allahabad Bank, in proceedings conducted in pursuance to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act”), has deposited the entire bid amount at the auction held on 28.06.2017, yet the possession of the property has not been handed over to him, despite lapse of nearly one and a half year and level best efforts made by him.

4. It has been submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has participated in the e - auction sale in respect of property "land Plot No. 384 M, House No. 12/2, measuring 3060 sq.ft., situated at Village - Payagipur, Pargana - Meeranpur, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Sultanpur" in the name of Vinod Kumar Pandey s/o Shri Ram Murti Pandey, against recovery of sum of Rs.31,89,156/- with interest expenses thereon due on M/s Farmer Agro Traders through its proprietor Vijay Kumar Pandey. In the auction notice dated 25.5.2-17, the reserve price of the property was fixed as Rs.60 Lacs. The petitioner with an intention to participate in auction proceedings deposited Rs.6 lakhs known as Earnest Money Deposit (hereinafter referred to as "EMD") with the opposite party number 2, through a cheque bearing number 000862 dated 23/06/17 in the name of Authorised Officer, Allahabad Bank, Sultanpur. Thereafter, he participated in the auction proceedings held on 28/06/17 and quoted Rs.60 Lacs for the aforesaid property, as the bid of the petitioner was highest, the bid was released in his favour. As per terms and condition of the bid, the petitioner deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.9 lakhs on the same day, as required under R.9 (3) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2002") but the sale confirmation letter was not issued in his favour.

5. It has been averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner was directed to pay remaining 75% of the sale amount within a period of 15 days from the date of auction. A



















































































































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 Back to top