Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Orders Refund of Forfeited Amount in Land Auction Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India ordered the refund of a forfeited amount in a land auction case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, addressed the appeal of Mohd. Shariq against Punjab National Bank and others.

The case revolved around an auction conducted by Punjab National Bank to recover a defaulted loan. Mohd. Shariq emerged as the highest bidder but failed to deposit the full amount within the specified timeframe. Shariq claimed that he was unaware of pending proceedings at the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) when he participated in the auction.

The Supreme Court, taking note of Shariq's bona fide defense and lack of knowledge about the pending proceedings, ruled that he was entitled to a refund of the forfeited amount. The Court emphasized that there was no dispute regarding the facts of the case and found no justification for Shariq to pursue alternative remedies for the recovery.

The judgment also addressed the application of Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, stating that it was not applicable in this scenario. The Court held that the failure to inform Shariq about the pending proceedings constituted a breach of duty, justifying his failure to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time.

Supreme Court directed Punjab National Bank to return the forfeited amount within two months, along with interest at a rate of 12% per annum for any delay in payment.

Date of Decision: April 11, 2023

MOHD. SHARIQ  vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS                    

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/11-Apr-2023-MOHD.-SHARIQ-Vs-PNB.pdf"]

Latest Legal News