Second 482 Petition Maintainable On Changed Circumstances: Allahabad HC Quashes Proceedings Against Aptech VP In Jal Nigam Recruitment Case Police Have No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Civil Disputes Between Parties, Must Adhere To Statutory Limits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Consent Decree Based On Compromise Signed By Constituted Attorney And Counsel Is Binding Even After 30 Years: Bombay High Court Changing Service Conditions Mid-Bond For Senior Residents Doctors Is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Quashes Retroactive Application Of New SOP Succession Certificate Under Indian Succession Act Cannot Determine Entitlement To Family Pension And Retiral Benefits: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected For Failure To Value Reliefs Separately And Pay Ad-Valorem Court Fees: Delhi High Court NDPS Act | Non-Compliance With Mandatory Provisions Of Sections 42, 50 And 57 Vitiates Search And Seizure, Warrants Acquittal: Gujarat High Court FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely On Complainant’s Consent; Court Must Independently Scrutinize If Ingredients Of Offence Are Made Out: Calcutta High Court Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act | Permanent Alimony Must Be Based On Husband’s Financial Capacity And Wife’s Reasonable Comfort: Jharkhand High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Direct Registration Of FIR Or Constitute SIT When Statutory Remedies Under CrPC Are Available: Delhi High Court Child Cannot Be Used As A Pawn To Prove Adultery Between Parents: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea To Examine Minor As Witness Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate Cannot Give Criminal Colour To Administrative Disputes By Directing FIR Registration Without Compliance With Priyanka Srivastava: High Court Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Dismiss Matrimonial Petition Merely For Lack Of 'Elaborate' Evidence In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Kerala High Court Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court Water Act | Supreme Court Directive Overrides Previous Quashing Orders; Magistrate Can Proceed Against Municipal Officials For Unchecked Sewage Discharge: Karnataka High Court A&C Act | Arbitrator’s Decision On Jurisdiction Treated As A Preliminary Issue Amounts To An 'Interim Award' Amenable To Challenge Under Section 34: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act | No Requirement To Hear Accused At Pre-Cognizance Stage Under Section 223 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 94 BNSS | Financial Institutions Entitled To Retain Custody Of Pledged Gold Provided Undertaking Is Filed Before Trial Court: Telangana High Court Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala 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