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

No Relief for Defaulters in Auction Process, SARFAESI Act Prevails Over Contract Act: Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest Money

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, upheld the forfeiture of earnest money deposit in a case involving a failed auction transaction under the SARFAESI Act and its rules. The bench stated, "Forfeiture of earnest money under SARFAESI Act’s Rule 9(5) does not amount to unjust enrichment."

The case, Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) vs. Anil Kumar Tandon, revolved around the forfeiture of the respondent's earnest money deposit after failing to complete the balance payment for a property purchased in a bank auction. The Supreme Court's decision set aside the earlier High Court judgment which had ordered the refund of the forfeited amount.

The bench observed, "The consequence of forfeiture of 25% of the deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules is a legal consequence that has been statutorily provided in the event of default in payment of the balance amount." This ruling clarifies that the provisions of Sections 73 & 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, concerning compensation for breach of contract, do not apply to SARFAESI transactions.

The Court highlighted the SARFAESI Act's unique position as a special enactment with an overriding effect on general laws, emphasizing its purpose in expediting the recovery of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) and reducing the burden on civil courts.

In a detailed analysis of the legislative history and the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, the judgment underscored the Act's significance in addressing the rising NPAs and the inadequacies of the previous legal framework in loan recovery.

The apex court also noted that while judicial intervention in forfeiture cases under SARFAESI Rules should be minimal, exceptions could be considered in rare and exceptional circumstances. However, the bench clarified that the respondent's inability to pay the balance amount, attributed to demonetization and other reasons, did not constitute such an exception in this case.

 Date of Decision: 02 February 2024

 The Authorised Officer, Central Bank Of India VS Rns Shanmugavelu 

 

Similar News