Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Bombay High Court Orders Fresh Auction of Mortgaged Property, Quashes DRT and DRAT Orders as "Perverse and Contrary to Law"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has directed a fresh auction for a mortgaged apartment, setting aside the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) for treating an unsecured creditor as a secured one. The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ., described the orders as "perverse and manifestly contrary to law."

The case revolves around a property mortgaged by Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL) involving Flat No. 61, Basant Apartment, Mumbai. The DRT and DRAT had approved the sale of this property at an auction below the approved reserve price, which was strongly contested by ARCIL.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, "The Impugned Orders turn on the head, well-established principles of law governing priority of security interests." The court highlighted that the DRT and DRAT erred in elevating the status of Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), an unsecured creditor, above the secured creditors, notably the consortium of banks led by Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), which held the mortgage.

- The court found that the auction sale price was significantly below the reserve price of Rs. 1.17 crores, terming it a ground for interference.

- SCB's claim over the proceeds from the sale of the property, based on a leave and license agreement with the Karias (property owners), was rejected.

- The High Court emphasized the supremacy of the mortgagee's rights over any licensee or unsecured creditor.

- Directions were issued for a fresh auction, treating the mortgagee as the only secured creditor.

This ruling underscores the protection of secured creditors' rights in property auctions and clarifies the legal position regarding the priority of claims in debt recovery processes. It serves as a critical reminder of the sanctity of secured debts and the legal framework governing their enforcement.

- A fresh auction to be conducted with the mortgagee as the only secured creditor.

- SCB to pursue recovery against the Karias, unrelated to the auction proceeds.

- The Purported Acquirers are entitled to a refund of any deposited amounts with interest.

The Court refrained from ordering costs, citing the peculiar circumstances of the case, and stressed the need for a swift resolution within six months. This decision is seen as a reaffirmation of established property and secured transaction laws, ensuring the fair treatment of secured creditors in debt recovery processes.

Date of Decided : 18-03-2024

ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Similar News