Procedural Lapses and Prolonged Incarceration Justify Bail Under NDPS Act: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Deposit of Sale Balance Is Not Fatal to Specific Performance Claims: Andhra High Court Justice Requires Insurance Company to Pay and Recover: Calcutta High Court on Fatal Accident Case IBC Moratorium Nullifies Vicarious Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act: Delhi High Court Fraud Unravels All: Partition Decree Set Aside for Suppressing Rights of Co-Owners: Madras High Court Matters of Evidence Must Be Examined at Trial, Not Preemptively Quashed: Kerala High Court Declines Quashment Leave Encashment Is a Property Right and Cannot Be Denied Without Statutory Authority: Gujarat High Court Widow's Right to Deceased Husband’s Property Ceases Upon Remarriage Before 1956: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Reassessment of Departmental Inquiries by Courts, Orders Interest on Delayed GPF Payments: P&H High Court Investigations Initiated Before BNSS, 2023, Must Proceed Under Cr.P.C., 1973: Rajasthan High Court Third-Party Objector’s Locus Standi in Criminal Cases Must Have a Bona Fide Connection: Madhya Pradesh High Court Amendments After Trial Commences Barred Without Demonstration of Due Diligence - Contradictory Claims Cannot Be Permitted: Punjab & Haryana High Court Double Presumption of Innocence in Appeals Against Acquittals Must Be Respected: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape and Carnal Intercourse Case Provisional Release Not Prejudice Revenue Interests: Kerala High Court Permits Provisional Release of Seized Goods Under GST Act GST Registration Cannot Be Cancelled Retrospectively Without Objective Criteria:  Delhi High Court Neither the Statutory Framework nor Lease Terms Compel Conveyance of Property: Supreme Court Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme Court

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