Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Mandatory Notice of 30 Days Was Not Given to the Borrower Before Holding the Auction/Sale: Supreme Court Sets Aside Auction Sale for Non-Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India set aside an auction sale due to the failure of the Bank of Baroda to adhere to mandatory notice requirements under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, thus upholding the previous judgments of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Legal Point of the Judgment: The judgment underlined the critical importance of compliance with statutory notice requirements, specifically the necessity of a 30-day notice to the borrower before conducting an auction sale, as mandated by the SARFAESI Act and related rules.

Facts and Issues: The appellants, Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr., who were tenants of the property put to auction, emerged as the highest bidders in the sale conducted by the respondent bank after the original borrower defaulted. However, the sale was contested and subsequently set aside due to the bank’s failure to provide the legally required notice to the borrower, raising significant questions about the validity of such auction sales under the SARFAESI Act.

Notice Requirements: The court emphasized the bank’s admission of failing to serve the mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower, which led to the auction sale being deemed invalid. This compliance was highlighted as foundational to the legality of enforcement actions under the SARFAESI Act.

Financial Adjustments and Interest Rates: The appellants were directed to receive a refund of the auction money along with compound interest at 12% per annum, calculated from the date of deposit to the actual payment. The court expressed a punitive view towards the bank for its oversight, noting that such errors lead to unnecessary litigation.

Status and Possession Rights: With the auction sale annulled, the court restored the appellants’ status as tenants, correcting the lower tribunal’s directive that had erroneously required the bank to take possession before refunding the auction money.

Restitution and No Dues Certificate: The court ordered the bank to reconcile accounts and issue a No Dues Certificate to the borrower upon settling all transactions, ensuring a clear resolution of the financial entanglements created by the auction sale.

Decision: The auction sale was set aside, and the appellants’ status as tenants was reinstated. They are entitled to the return of their auction money with 12% compounded annual interest.

 Date of Decision: April 18, 2024

Govind Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News