The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to extend time for payment of an auction balance amount under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that this is a private agreement between parties and it lacks authority to enlarge time based solely on litigants' requests.
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:09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.934 of 2021
1.A.Kaja Khan
2.Parvin Begum
3.K.Mehaboob Khan .. Petitioners
Vs 1. Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, No.816, Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore - 641 001, rep. by its Chief Manager.
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 first respondent relating to the impugned e-auction notice dated 25.12.2020 published in Dhinamani vernacular Tamil daily regarding e- auction of the property to be conducted on 18.01.2021 and quash the same thereby direct the respondents to issue a sale certificate in favour of the petitioners after receiving the balance bid amount of Rs.2,82,00,000/- at once from the petitioner.
For Petitioners
: Mr.C.Veeraraghavan
For Respondents
: Mr.Srinath Sridevan for Mr.S.Sethuraman
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petitioners herein have successfully bid for a property sold by the respondent bank at an auction conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The entire consideration could not be paid and the petitioners claim that it was the pandemic that stood in the way. Certain terms were offered by the bank to the petitioners and the matter was adjourned on June 18, 2021 and again on July 2, 2021. The petitioners seek further time and the bank is not inclined to afford any more time. Unless the parties agree, the Court does not have the authority to enlarge the time on the mere ipse dixit of the litigants seeking enlargement of time. Secured creditors are permitted to extend the time to receive the consideration from an auction purchaser till ninety days after the auction. In this case, the secured creditor agreed to accept the payment on certain conditions. It is a matter of private agreement between the creditor and the borrower where the Court cannot step in. There does not appear to be any basis to the petitioners' prayer that a further few days or a fortnight should be afforded to the petitioners to make the balance payment or even accept the terms offered by the bank.
W.P.No.934 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to the costs. W.M.P.Nos.1023, 1025 and 1026 of 2021 are closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
bbr
To
W.P.No.934 of 2021
SSN(CO)
RG(13/07/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can enlarge the time for payment under SARFAESI Act merely on the ipse dixit of litigants when secured creditors have agreed to terms.
Whether the Court can intervene in private agreements between a secured creditor and an auction purchaser regarding payment timelines.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.Kaja Khan
Parvin Begum
K.Mehaboob Khan
Union Bank of India
Sanjib Banerjee
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
