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

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Dhanabal, J.
A.Raja - Plaintiff
Versus
Indian Bank Represented By Its Manager - Defendant
CS No. 160 of 2024
Decided On : 17-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. K.V.Ananthakrishnan
For the Defendant : Mr. M.A.Abdul Wahab for M/s. K.V.Subramanian Associatez

Forfeiture of 25% bid amount under SARFAESI Rules 9(5) is mandatory on default, unaffected by higher subsequent sale or absence of loss; equity cannot override statutory provision. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [SARFAESI Act] - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rules 9(3), 9(4), 9(5) - Auction purchaser failed to pay balance sale consideration within 90 days despite extensions - Sale cancelled and deposit forfeited - Subsequent auction fetched higher price - Forfeiture of 25% of bid amount upheld as statutory consequence under Rule 9(5), irrespective of no loss to bank or higher subsequent sale price - Equitable considerations or Sections 73, 74 of Indian Contract Act cannot override clear statutory mandate - Forfeiture not a penalty. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

(B) Estoppel - Participation in subsequent auction after forfeiture of prior deposit estops challenge to earlier forfeiture. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, successful bidder in e-auction for Rs.3,79,10,000/-, paid Rs.1,59,77,500/- but defaulted on balance within 90 days. Sale cancelled on 21.06.2023, 25% (Rs.94,77,500/-) forfeited, balance Rs.65 lakhs refunded later. Plaintiff participated in re-auction (paying further EMD), lost to higher bidder (Rs.5,06,00,000/-), sued for refund of forfeited amount with 24% interest.

Findings of Court:
Defendant bank entitled to forfeit 25% under Rule 9(5); no refund due; no loss consideration relevant; suit dismissed without costs.

Issues: 1. Whether plaintiff entitled to refund of Rs.94,77,500/-? 2. Whether defendant entitled to forfeit 25% bid amount? 3. Whether defendant suffered loss justifying forfeiture? 4. Other reliefs?

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 9(5) mandates forfeiture of 25% deposit on default in balance payment, statutory and not subject to equity, subsequent higher sale price, or general contract law principles; follows Supreme Court precedent affirming legal consequence irrespective of outcomes. Rule 8(6) inapplicable.

Result: Suit dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

This Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of recovery of money to the tune of Rs.1,59,77,500/- with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint and reply Statement are as follows:-

The defendant is the bank, which lent loan to one M/s. Arun Agencies and the property in Plot No.45 and 46 measuring 49.412 cents in Old No.128/2 part, 128/3 part, Patta No.396, New S. No.128/2A1C and 128/2A1D of Kazhipattur Village, Kanchceepuram District now Chengalpattu District with a building admeasuring about 3500 sq. ft. belonged to M/s. Arun Agencies and two others has been mortgaged for the loan. The said loan availed by the borrower M/s. Arun Agencies has become ‘Non-Performing Asset [NPA]’ and thereby, the bank initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act [SARFAESI Act] and brought the said property for sale through an auction on 03.03.2023. The Plaintiff had participated in the E-auction and he was a successful bidder for a sale consideration of Rs.3,79,10,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.94,77,500/- and the remaining amount is payable on or before 31.03.2023. However, the defendant had orally permitted and granted extension of time by 90 days. The Plaintiff effected payment on 06.06.2023 and last payment was made by him on 08.06.2023 and paid a total sum of Rs.1,56,77,500/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,19,32,500/- has to be remitted on or before 30.06.2023. Considering the oral extension and payments received till 08.06.2023, the Plaintiff requested the defendant for extension of time till 30.06.2023 for payment of balance sale consideration. However, the defendant bank refused to extend the time and accepted the payment of third parties offered to buy the property for higher consideration. When the Plaintiff approached the defendant on several times for refund of the amount of Rs.1,59,77,500/-, the defendant bank intimated the Plaintiff through a letter dated 21.06.2023 that the bank had cancelled the sale and forfeited the entire deposit amount of Rs.1,59,77,500/-. Thereafter, the defendant asked the Plaintiff to participate in the fresh auction to be held on 28.07.2023 and stated that if the Plaintiff becomes a successful bidder, the amount already deposited would be adjusted towards the bid amount.

2.1. Accordingly, the Plaintiff also participated in the fresh sale auction after remitting a sum of Rs.37,90,000/- on 27.07.2023. But the schedule property was sold to one Mrs. Parameswari for a sum of Rs.5,06,00,000/- which is higher than the previous sale price. Thereafter, the defendant refunded the 10% bid amount of Rs.37,90,000/- on 03.08.2023. The amount of Rs.37,90,000/- deposited by the Plaintiff to participate has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.3,79,100- in the legal notice dated 28.10.2023. Thereafter, the Plaintiff requested the defendant to refund the amount in the previous auction to the tune of Rs.1,59,77,500/-. The defendant has not incurred any loss. The Plaintiff was asked to participate in the fresh auction and the defendant assured that if the Plaintiff is successful in the re-auction, the amount paid by the Plaintiff in the previous auction would be adjusted. Therefore, there is no forfeiture when the defendant legally agreed to adjust / refund the entire amount paid by the Plaintiff. The defendant, by a letter dated 04.10.2023 offered to pay a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- only after forfeiture of a sum of Rs.94,77,500/- being 25% of the bid amount. Therefore, the Plaintiff issued a notice dated 28.10.2023 calling upon the defendant to refund the amount of Rs.1,59,77,500/- and the defendant issued a reply notice dated 16.12.2023 with false averments. Thereafter, on 08.02.2024, the defendant credited a sum of Rs.65 lakhs in the Plaintiff’s account. The defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,77,500/- with interest @ 24% from 30.10.2023, i.e., the date of receipt of legal notice. The

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