CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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 

 

Latest Legal News