Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances

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