Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

High Court of Delhi Directs Refund of Auction Amount with Interest for Non-disclosure of Litigations: Upholds Transparency and Fairness in Bank Auctions”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principles of transparency and fairness in bank auctions, the High Court of Delhi has directed the refund of the amount paid by a petitioner in an e-auction, along with interest and compensation for undisclosed litigations and encumbrances. The judgment, pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, addresses crucial aspects of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

In the case [W.P.(C) 2829/2023 & CM APPL 10919/2023], M/s Kalyani (India) Private Limited, the petitioner, successfully bid for a property in a bank auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act. However, it was later discovered that the property was embroiled in several undisclosed litigations, leading to the petitioner not receiving possession.

Justice Kaurav, in his judgment, emphasized the duty of banks to act transparently and provide full disclosure, stating, “The mandate of full and true disclosure would emanate from the concept of legitimate expectation, which has an established place in our constitutional scheme.” He further highlighted, “An ‘as is where is’ clause must be construed in a pragmatic sense and a buyer cannot be held responsible if the seller indulged in an active concealment of foundational facts.”

The court ordered the respondents to refund Rs.34,10,000 paid as stamp duty and Rs.14,37,536 paid as house property tax to the petitioner within six weeks. Additionally, the respondents were directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,90,25,000, from the date of the deposit of the amount till the date of refund.

This judgment is seen as a significant step towards ensuring fairness in bank auctions and protecting the interests of auction participants against non-disclosure of material information. The court’s reliance on various judicial precedents underscored the evolving jurisprudence in favor of consumer rights and the obligations of financial institutions in such transactions.

Date of Decision: 24th January 2024

M/S KALYANI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER

 

Latest Legal News