Suresh Kumar Yadav v. State Bank of India

Appeal Dy. No. 76/2023 Date: 01.03.2023

Suresh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.

Present: Shri Ashok Pandey, counsel for the appellant, None for the respondents,

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are the auction purchasers of the properties in question, which was auctioned on 29.01.2021 pursuant to the sale notice dated 24.12.2020 issued by the respondent-Bank. The said sale was challenged by the respondent No. 2-borrower by filing the S.A. No. 27/2021 before the Tribunal below.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the only issue under agitation is that the Tribunal below has not dealt with the provisions of section 19 of the SARFAESI Act while passing the order impugned. The said section says that if any court holds that the action taken by the Bank is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act & Rules made thereunder and the auction sale is set aside, then amount of compensation and costs may be quantified. In the present case, the Tribunal below has set-aside the auction proceedings conducted by the Respondent-Bank, but the provisions of section 19 of the SARFAESI Act has not been considered by the Tribunal below while passing the order impugned and neither any interest on the auction money nor any compensation or costs have been awarded to the appellants, therefore, the present case may be remanded back to the Tribunal below for deciding the said issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 19 of the SARFAESI Act, as the appellants have no grievance against setting aside the auction sale proceedings conducted by the Bank.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he shall press the relief only against non-awarding of interest on auction amount, compensation and costs by the Tribunal below in the order impugned and not against the merits of the case, therefore, the court fee paid is sufficient.