Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA
Celir LLP – Appellant
Versus
Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
The right of redemption of a mortgaged property generally exists until the sale is finalized through a registered transfer or conveyance (!) . Under the amended SARFAESI Act, this right is considered to be extinguished once the auction notice is published (!) . After publication of the notice, the mortgagor's opportunity to redeem is waived or deemed waived, and the sale process proceeds to completion (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues in the appeals arise from the same underlying facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion of the borrower's financial situation and auction processes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding the law on redemption rights. (Para 22 , 23 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. conclusion directing bank actions following auction. (Para 106 , 108) |
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
| For the convenience of the exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: | |
| (A) | Factual Matrix |
| (B) | Submissions on behalf of the Appellant |
| (C) | Submissions on behalf of the Borrowers |
| (D) | Questions of Law falling for the determination of the Court |
| (E) | Legislative History and Scheme of the SARFAESI Act |
| (F) | Redemption of Mortgage under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 |
| (G) | Redemption of Mortgage under the SARFAESI Act |
| (H) | Effect of the Amendment to Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act |
| (I) | Why the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of Amme Srisailam vs. Union Bank of India, Region |
None of the provided case entries indicate that the primary precedent case, *Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd.* (reported as (2024) 2 SCC 1), has been overruled, reversed, or abrogated. Conversely, the list shows it is being consistently relied upon and reaffirmed by various courts.
### Followed/Affirmed/Relied Upon
The vast majority of the provided entries cite *Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd.* as a binding precedent or authoritative source. The courts consistently reference this judgment to support the principles of judicial restraint, the exhaustion of statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act, the extinguishment of the right of redemption upon auction publication, and the sanctity of auction processes.
* **Category: Writ Jurisdiction & Alternative Remedy**
* Many entries (e.g., D.Mohan vs The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Theppakulam, Trichy- 2. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58138, S.Balu vs SICOM LTD., Represented by its Authorized Officer - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48184, The Manager / Authorized Officer, PNB Housing Finance Limited vs The Superintendent of Police, Pudur, Madurai - Madras (2025), PHR Invent Educational Society VS Uco Bank - 2024 3 Supreme 681) cite the case to affirm that High Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when effective alternative remedies exist under the SARFAESI Act.
* **Category: Right of Redemption & Auction Sanctity**
* Entries such as Rasheed Khan vs Authorised Officer Uco Bank And Anr. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 790, DR. SHYAMALA REDDY vs THE MANAGER - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9655, and Ashwani Kumar Oberoi vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAGADHRI - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1273 rely on *Celir LLP* to clarify that the borrower’s right of redemption is extinguished upon publication of the auction notice and that auction processes must be respected.
* **Category: General Precedent**
* Numerous entries (e.g., Sharp Industries VS Bank of Maharashtra - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1242, Authorised Officer, Central Bank Of India VS Shanmugavelu - 2024 2 Supreme 92, Tushar Kanti Karmakar vs Shilabati Hospital Private Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 923) explicitly state that the view of the court is "reaffirmed" or "followed" by subsequent benches, demonstrating the case's status as established law.
### Distinguished/Clarified
* **Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Bank of India - Bombay:** This entry notes that while *Celir LLP* is relied upon, it is distinguished regarding its scope, stating: "Pertinently, in Celir LLP (supra), the Supreme Court was not dealing with any IBC implications at all. The ratio of Indian Overseas Bank (supra) is not affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in Celir LLP (supra)." This indicates the case is being narrowed by scope rather than criticized.
* **Pushplata Ishwar Wife of Subhash Kumar Ishwar vs Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ashiana Digha Road, P.SRajiv Nagar, Patna - 2026 0 Supreme(Pat) 28 and Pushplata Ishwar vs The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ashiana Digha Road, P.S-Rajiv Nagar, Patna - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 274:** These entries contain a potential error in citation, referencing "Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 548." Given that the primary *Celir LLP* judgment is identified as occurring in 2023/2024 (2 SCC 1), the reference to a 2011 SCC report appears to be a typographical error within the source text. I have treated these as relying on *Celir LLP* generally, despite the incorrect reporter citation.
* **Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt. Ltd. VS Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1208:** The entry refers to "*Celir LLP v. Bhafna Motors*." This is likely a misspelling of the respondent's name ("Bafna"), and while the treatment is clearly reliance based on context, the spelling discrepancy is noted.
* **Golla HaridasYadav, S/o. Golla Lakshmana vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 769:** The entry refers to "*Celir LLP v. Safna Motors*." Similar to the above, this appears to be a typographical error, though the context clearly intends to refer to the primary *Celir LLP* precedent.
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
