9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the non-deposit of the balance sale consideration within the time limit prescribed under Rule 9(4) was not attributable to the respondents so as to call them defaulters within the meaning of the provisions of Rule 9 (4) and (5) of the Rules. The reason for the nonissuance of the sale certificate is solely attributable to the appellant-Bank and that there were no latches, negligence or default on part of the respondents in offering to deposit the balance auction amount. Since there is no default on their part, non-deposit of the said amount within the stipulated period would not be fatal within the meaning of sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules. The High Court has not committed any error of law in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the appellant- Bank manifestly erred in cancelling the auction sale dated 10.04.2018 and in directing to issue sale certificate/register the sale deed in favour of the respondents after getting the balance auction amount deposited within a period of four weeks. Appeal dismissed. - PANKAJ MITHAL And R. MAHADEVAN , JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 Hereinafter referred to as the Rules , therefore, such a plea taken by the appellant-Bank for the first time in the writ petition is not tenable. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank is that in view of the statutory provisions contained under the Rules, especially Rule 9(4) of the Rules, since the respondents had not deposited the balance sale consideration within the mandatory period of 90 days, the High Court has erred in directing the appellant-Bank to issue the sale certificate and to execute the sale deed. The balance sale consideration was never deposited by the respondents within the time permitted and the letter(s) of the respondents clearly establishes that they kept on seeking extension of time without depositing the amount. Moreover, on the complaint of the appellant-Bank to the Central Bureau of Investigation In short CBI made on 08.03.2018, the Enforcement Directorate In short ED had taken suo moto cognizance and issued an advisory to the appellant-Bank not to release the title deeds. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only issue which arises for consideration is as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly rider was to keep the property documents in safe custody. The respondents, on the other hand, never insisted for the release or the handing over of the property documents rather submitted that they would not create any third-party interest in the property auctioned and that the original documents of the property would be collected by them, subsequently on the consent and clearance from the CBI and ED. In the light of such a stand taken by the respondents on affidavit, the appellant-Bank apparently was not justified in refusing to issue sale certificate to the respondents on the pretext that there was an advisory from the ED. It is worth noticing that even the advisory of ED dated 08.06.2018 is not material for not accepting the balance sale consideration within the period of 15 days stipulated in the sale confirmation letter dated 10.04.2018 which period expired on 25.04.2018, much before the issuance of the above advisory. The respondents were not responsible either for the delay in depositing or nonacceptance of the balance auction amount by the appellant- Bank. 11. As far as the filing of Writ Petition No. 12390 of 2018 by one of the guarantors is concerned, an interim stay o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a default on part of the auction purchaser to invite cancellation of the auction and second, that the period of deposit stipulated therein is not absolute rather extendable with the agreement of the parties. 14. Sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules are extracted below : (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months]. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. 15. In Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. Sreenivasulu and Ors. (2023) 2 SCC 168 , this Court while interpreting Rule 9(4) of the Rules observed that it refers to a period of 15 days for deposit of balance sale consideration or such extended period for which no outer limit has been prescribed. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod would not be fatal within the meaning of sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that the cancellation of the auction sale vide communication dated 24.12.2019 is purely unilateral in nature without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The said cancellation as such is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice and is illegal. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, relying upon Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited and Others (2023) 10 SCC 232 , had submitted that the statutory period prescribed under Rule 9(4) is not liable to be extended by this Court even in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, this Court accepted that though the plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent which are of very wide amplitude but the said power cannot be used to supplement the substantive law by ignoring the express statutory provision. The aforesaid authority cited on behalf of the appellant-Bank is not of any help to it in this case as we are not providing for any new period of limitation for depositing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
