SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

An ingenious litigant defeating the very purpose for which the SARFAESI Act : SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


SEPTEMBER 23, 2021   

Ace Concrete Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the borrower') was a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready mixed concrete. The borrower had availed loans from respondent No.5 –Indian Overseas Bank. Borrower was, therefore, classified as 'Non­Performing Asset (NPA)' on 1.4.2011. On 20.2.2012, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a Securitisation Application being S.A.69 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal­III, Chennai. The DRT granted an interim stay restraining the respondent Bank from proceeding further with the First Sale Notice dated 21.1.2012. An amount of Rs.1 crore came to be deposited before the DRT, Chennai, in S.A. No. 227 of 2012. This was on the pretext of an ongoing investigation by the CBI with regard to some fraudulent activities of the Officers of the respondent Bank. A sum of Rs.12 crore was paid to the respondent Bank against the sale of mortgaged property. The Madras High Court has restrained the Bank and the auction purchaser from taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties. It has also directed the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to dispose of M.A. No.227 of 2012. C.R.P. PD. No.4410 of 2013 came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 3.12.2013. The same was challenged by the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the DRAT, Chennai. The DRT, Chennai, allowed S.A. No.227 of 2012 and set aside the Second Sale Notice dated 9.7.2012 and consequent sale of the mortgaged properties and imposed cost of Rs.50,000/­ on the Bank for willfully violating the provisions of law. The DRAT, Chennai, allowed both the appeals and set aside the order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the DRT, Chennai. The auction purchaser also challenged the said order dated 6.9.2019. Vide the impugned common order dated 18.11.2019, all the four writ petitions were disposed of. SC observed Section 13 Rule 8 , 9 Of SARFASI Act -  transaction became a nonperforming asset - issued notices - no sale of an immovable property should take place before 30 days -  purpose - the secured asset derives the maximum price, and no one is allowed to exploit the vulnerable situation . Mortgagor debtor - right to redeem the property - if the tender is made by the borrower at the last moment before the sale or transfer - secured asset should not be sold or transferred - right to redemption stands extinguished on the sale certificate getting registered. The right to redemption stands extinguished on the sale certificate getting registered. Appeal Dismissed .

KARTHIK & ORS. 

 VERSUS 

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS.    

Latest Legal News