Borrower’s Right to Redeem Secured Asset Ends on Publication of Notice u/s 9(1) of SI Rules, Not After Sale Completion | SC
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 3 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 22 December, 2024
Case Details: Celir LLP vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 381 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra, JJ.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, original borrower availed credit facility from bank against which, a simple mortgage was created over a land and buildings (secured asset) belonging to borrower vide a mortgage deed.
Borrower defaulted in repayment of said loan amount and accordingly, bank issued a demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for repayment of principal amount along with interest, cost, charges, etc.
Later, Bank issued a possession notice under section 13(4) and took symbolic possession of secured asset – Bank decided to put secured asset to auction – Pursuant to 9th notice of sale, auction proceedings were conducted.
In said 9th auction conducted by bank, petitioner submitted its bid and was declared as highest bidder. Bank sent a sale confirmation letter to petitioner, declaring him as highest bidder in auction of secured asset.
Consequently, Sale certificate was issued to petitioner. Later, borrower filed a writ petition before High Court seeking directions to bank to permit them to redeem mortgage of secured asset – High Court by impugned order permitted borrower to redeem mortgage.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court observed that right of borrower to redeem secured asset would be available only till date of publication of notice under Rule 9(1) of SARFAESI Rules and not till completion of the sale or transfer of secured asset in favour of auction purchaser.
Since no challenge had been laid to 9th auction proceedings on ground of it being either fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding, the Supreme Court held that the auction could not be said to suffer from any fundamental procedural error, and as such did not warrant the interference of instant Court.
Thus, sale of secured asset to petitioner was confirmed and title conferred through sale certificate was declared to be absolute. Also, borrower would also unconditionally withdraw securitisation application pending before DRT.
Further, the subsequent Transferee would hand over peaceful physical possession of Secured Asset along with its original title deeds to Bank. Also, bank would refund amount paid by borrower towards redemption of mortgage without any interest.
List of Cases Referred to
- Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors & Ors. (2023 INSC 838 (para 1)
- Arce Polymers Private Limited v. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2022) 2 SCC 221 (para 58)
- ITC Ltd. v. Blue Coast Hotels Limited & Ors. reported in (2018) 15 SCC 99 (para 68)
- Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors. reported in (2023) 10 SCC 817 (para 71)
- Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr. v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 561 (para 73)
- General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. v. Ikbal & Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 83 (para 75)
- Vasu P. Shetty v. Hotel Vandana Palace & Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 660 (para 75)
- In Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022) 5 SCC 345 (para 125)
- In Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607 (para 143)
- Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal reported in (2022) 6 SCC 496 (para 154)
- In Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy (2006) 13 SCC 608 (para 163)
- Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Lakshmi Ammal reported in (2008) 5 SCC 796 (para 164)
- T. Ravi & Anr. v. B. Chinna Narasimha & Ors. reported in (2017) 7 SCC 342 (para 177)
- In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 1 (para 184)
- In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 204 (para 188)
- In Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 367 (para 189)
- In Pushpaben & Anr. v. Narandas Badiani & Anr. reported in (1979) 2 SCC 394 (para 190)
- In Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora (1996) 6 SCC 14 (para 192)
- order being amenable to more than one interpretation. In Jhareshwar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 (para 203)
- PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024) 6 SCC 579 (para 215)
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied