The High Court held that adjudication of forfeiture of the deposit and its quantum by a secured creditor is a question of fact for an appropriate forum, not the writ court. The petition was disposed of by permitting the parties to work out remedies.
Petition disposed by permitting parties to work out remedies regarding forfeiture before an appropriate forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.19042 of 2020
Rubina ..Petitioner
vs.
The Authorised Officer, M/s.Axis Bank Limited, RAC, Kodambakkam,
Chennai - 600 024. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned letter dated 05.10.2020 issued by the respondent under Rule 9 (5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and quash the same and reasonable time frame to be fixed by this Court for paying the balance amount towards 75% of the balance purchase price by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya For Respondent : Mr.R.Sreedhar
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent secured creditor did not inform the petitioner of certain encumbrance pertaining to the asset sold under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
petitioner's purchase, but the petitioner was impeded by the property standing encumbered in some third party's favour. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the bank has purported to forfeit the consideration tendered without affording the petitioner a chance to pay the balance amount, particularly since the second surge of the pandemic stood in the way of the petitioner arranging for money.
forfeit, say 99% of the payment made for the default in depositing the balance 1%. Thus, the quantum that can be forfeited will depend on the extent of the loss or damage suffered by the party not in breach and this is, essentially, a question of fact that has to be adjudicated by an appropriate forum. The High Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not such forum.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate on the forfeiture of consideration and its quantum by a secured creditor.
Whether the High Court can direct the secured creditor to extend the time for balance payment under the Rules.
Rubina
The Authorised Officer, M/s.Axis Bank Limited
Sanjib Banerjee
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
