9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 156 - SC - Indian LawsExtension of time limit - Seeking directions to Union Bank of India (original Appellant) to issue Sale letter in favour of the Applicant - whether the extension of time sought by the Applicant in the successive applications was permissible in the eye of law? - whether the Applicant had in fact complied with the orders passed by the Court from time to time in the said applications? HELD THAT - It is well settled proposition of law that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. In the instant case, out of the total bid amount of Rs.65.62 Crores finalized on the date of auction sale i.e., 11.11.2019, the Applicant had deposited an amount of Rs.31,20,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Crores Twenty Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only with the bank and was required to deposit the balance amount with the authorized officer of the bank on or before the fifteenth day of the confirmation of sale of the subject property i.e., on or before 26.11.2019 as per Rule 9(4) of the said Rules. However, this Court while disposing of the said Civil Appeals in UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ORS. 2020 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT permitted the Respondent No.6 (Applicant herein) to deposit the balance of sale amount till 20.03.2020 - the Applicant did not deposit the balance sale amount on or before 20.03.2020. Thereafter, the Applicant projecting the cause of Covid-19, sought extension of time for payment of the balance sale price by filing the M.A. No.894 of 2020. The court in UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ORS. 2020 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT , extended the date upto 30.04.2020, clarifying that no further extension shall be granted. The extension of time granted by the court vide the order dated 12.05.2020, which was selflimiting, had lapsed or expired at least by 30.04.2022 as per the version of the Appellant Bank. Thereafter, there was no order passed by the court specifically extending the time limit. Significantly, there is no clarification made by the Applicant M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd., as to how the deposit of Rs.34,41,50,000/- on 22.07.2022 and the deposit of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/- on 26.08.2022 made with the Appellant Bank were in due compliance of the orders passed by the Court from time to time and particularly of the order dated 12.05.2020. The submission of the Applicant that this Court should treat the deposits made by the Applicant on 22.07.2022 and on 26.08.2022 as due compliance of the order dated 12.05.2020, extending the time limit by exercising the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or exercising the powers conferred on the court under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot be accepted in view of the statutory provision contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules - The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes. These powers though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court. There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the Respondent No.1 Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others had preferred any appeal before the DRAT in view of the order passed in UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ORS. 2020 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT , and if preferred whether the same is pending or not. There is also no clarity about the final outcome of the main Security Application preferred by the Respondent No.1 Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others before the DRT. The instant Miscellaneous Application being not maintainable cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed - Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application seeking directions for issuance of the sale certificate. 2. Compliance with the orders passed by the Court regarding the payment of the auction amount and interest. 3. Interpretation and application of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Application: The Applicant (original Respondent No.6) filed M.A. No.1735 of 2022 seeking directions for the issuance of a Sale letter in favor of the Applicant by the Union Bank of India. The Respondent No.1 Rajat Infrastructure contended that the application is not maintainable in a disposed of Civil Appeal, especially when the Applicant failed to comply with the Court's orders and Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Court emphasized that such applications in disposed cases to avoid judicial adjudication are not maintainable and strongly discouraged this emerging trend. The Court referenced the case of Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others, highlighting that repeated applications styled as Miscellaneous Applications have no legal foundation and must be discouraged. 2. Compliance with Court Orders: The Applicant was required to deposit the balance sale amount by 20.03.2020 as per the Court's order dated 02.03.2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court extended this deadline multiple times, with the final extension being until two months after the lifting of the lockdown. The Applicant made partial payments on various dates but failed to deposit the entire balance amount with interest by the extended deadline. The Court noted that the Applicant did not clarify how the deposits made on 22.07.2022 and 26.08.2022 complied with the orders, particularly the order dated 12.05.2020. The Court concluded that the Applicant failed to comply with the orders and did not make the required deposits within the extended time frame. 3. Interpretation and Application of Rule 9: Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, stipulates the timelines for payment of the balance sale amount and the issuance of the sale certificate. The balance amount must be paid within fifteen days of the confirmation of the sale or an extended period not exceeding three months. The Court emphasized that statutory requirements must be strictly followed, referencing the principle that a particular thing must be done in a particular manner as established in previous judgments (Taylor vs. Taylor, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh, and Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala). The Court held that the Applicant failed to comply with Rule 9, as the payments were not made within the stipulated or extended periods. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Application No.1735 of 2022, stating that it was not maintainable and the Applicant failed to comply with the Court's orders and the statutory requirements under Rule 9. The Court clarified that the Applicant could seek other remedies permissible under the law, including filing appropriate proceedings for a refund of the amount deposited with the bank.
|
