Petitioners challenged a sale deed issued under SARFAESI Act. The Court distinguished reliance on Surinder Pal Singh, noting the petitioner had not paid the auction amount. The petition was dismissed as without merit.
Sale deed and proceedings were allowed to stand; petition dismissed.
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.
CWP-19284-2024 (O&M)
Sr. No.104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-19284-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.08.2024
M/s Pinterest I nterior Studio and another
…Petitioners
Versus
Bank of Baro d a and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : M r. Rose Gupta, Advocate, M s. Garima Modi, Advocate, M r. Parambir Singh, Advocate, f o r the petitioners.
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged th e sale deed dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-19) executed by respondent N o.2 in favour of respondent No.3.
VANDANA 2024.08.09 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 1 of 2
CWP-19284-2024 (O&M)
28.03.2024. R eplication was filed and pro c eedings before the District Magistrate are pending. 5. The property is stated to ha v e been put to auction on 15.05.2024 and the sale certificate has been i s sued on 27.06.2024 in favour of respondent N o.4. 6. P e titioner is stated to have paid o nly an amount of Rs.3 lakhs in pursuance to the notice issued under Secti o n 13(2) of the Act against an amount of Rs. 4 7,15,124/-. 7. W e are of the considered view t h at the reliance of the learned counsel for t h e petitioner on the judgment in the case of Surinder Pal Singh (supra) is wholly misconceived in a smuch as in that case, the borrower had p aid the auction amount and ha d been issued a ‘No objection Certificate’ a n d the possession of the pre m ises had remained with the borrower. It w as in those circumstances that t he Apex Court had passed an order directin g the redemption of the mortgag e and the bank was directed to pay the entire amount of auction money alon g with accrued interest to the auction purch a ser and borrower was also dire c ted to pay the compensation. In the instant c ase, it is reiterated that the peti t ioner has paid only the paltry amount of 3 l a khs in pursuance to the notice u nder Section 13(2) of the Act against a sum of Rs.47,15,124/-. The propert y had been put to auction and the sale certi fi cate has also been issued and it seems that this petition is without any m erit and dismissed accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE
August 09, 2024 vandana Whether spea k ing/reasoned : Yes/No Whether repo r table : Yes/No
VANDANA 2024.08.09 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale deed executed under SARFAESI Act provisions should be set aside by petitioners ready to pay outstanding dues.
Whether the judgment of Surinder Pal Singh (Supra) is applicable in the present facts where recovery proceedings are pending prior to auction.
Whether the petition is maintainable and meritorious given the auction proceedings initiated by the bank.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Vijaya Bank and othersDistinguished¶6
Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Vijaya Bank and others
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Pinterest Interior Studio
Bank of Baroda
Anupinder Singh Grewal
Lapita Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
