Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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 

 

Latest Legal News