Dismissed¶39

M/S Jai Maa Industries and Otehrs v. M/S Capri Global Capital Ltd. and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2026CWP/1340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: SARFAESI Act 2002; amended Section 13(8); right of redemption; extinguishment 30 days after publication of auction notice; auction notice 16.10.2022; auction purchaser; Sale Certificate dated 22.12.2022; quashment petition; Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Sanjiv Berry, J.; decision 02.02.2026; Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.12174 of 2025 (decided 22.12.2025); refund of conditional interim deposit with admissible interest; M/s Jai Maa Industries v. M/s Capri Global Capital Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Refund to the petitioners of the Rs. 35,70,000 deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 23.01.2023, with admissible interest, within 15 days ¶39

M/S Jai Maa Industries and Otehrs Vs M/S Capri… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Refund to the petitioners of the Rs. 35,70,000 deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 23.01.2023, with admissible interest, within 15 days

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the correct interpretation of amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act (as amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016), the petitioners-borrowers had any subsisting right of redemption on the date the petition was filed, so as to justify quashment of the Sale Certificate dated 22.12.2022.

¶17

Court's answer

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court on amended Section 13(8) SARFAESI, the petitioners' right of redemption got extinguished after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the auction notice (published 16.10.2022), i.e., sometime around 15.11.2022, before the auction was concluded and the sale certificate was issued.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners failed to satisfy the Court that they had any right of redemption on the date the petition was filed; accordingly the petition seeking quashment of the Sale Certificate stands dismissed.

¶39

Key takeaways

The respondent Bank was directed to return to the petitioners, within a period of 15 days, the amount of Rs. 35,70,000 lying deposited, along with admissible interest, in accordance with law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 — S.13(8) (as amended w.e.f. 01.09.2016) — borrower's right of redemption — Petition by borrowers (M/s Jai Maa Industries and others) seeking quashment of the Sale Certificate dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P27) pertaining to their residential house, sold to auction purchaser/respondent No.3 whose highest bid was Rs. 26,85,000. Applying the Supreme Court's recent decision interpreting amended S.13(8) (Civil Appeal No.12174 of 2025, decided 22.12.2025), the Court held that the right of redemption stood extinguished on expiry of 30 days from publication of the auction notice (16.10.2022), i.e., around 15.11.2022; the petitioners therefore had no subsisting right of redemption when the petition was filed — petition dismissed. The respondent Bank was directed to refund the Rs. 35,70,000 deposited under the interim order dated 23.01.2023, with admissible interest, within 15 days. Order by Sanjiv Berry, J., dated 02.02.2026.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

224/2

¶3

�� Date of Decision:- 02.02.2026

¶4

M/S JAI MAA INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS

¶5

....Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/S CAPRI GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD AND OTHERS

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

�� SANJIV BERRY

¶10

Present: Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate (arguing counsel) Mr. Gurjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶11

Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Additional A.G. Haryana.

¶12

Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

¶14

�� !"#�

¶15

The petitioners2borrowers have filed the present petition seeking quashment of the Sale Certificate dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P27) pertaining to the secured asset, which was the residential house of the petitioners, in respect of which respondent No. 3 had submitted the highest bid of 26,85,000/.₹

¶16

An interim order was passed on 23.01.2023, subject to the petitioners depositing 35,70,000/2, which the petitioners did within two₹ days thereafter.

¶17

The only question relevant in the present case is the correct interpretation of amended Section 13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

¶18

SANDAL SHARMA 2026.02.04 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

��

¶20

-2-

¶21

Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity), which was amended with effect from 01.09.2016. The un2amended and amended sub2section 8 of Section 13 are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:2

�$�!%&$'&'

��

�%&$'&'

�� !��"�� !�� #

�� $�� #��

¶27

The Apex Court, in its recent decision rendered on 22.12.2025

¶28

in ��

¶29

�� , Civil Appeal No.12174 of 2025 was �� faced with the task of answering the question as to what is the import of expression “ ��  ” as used in amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶30

4.1. The Apex Court answered the aforementioned question as

¶31

follows:2

¶32

SANDAL SHARMA 2026.02.04 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶33

��

¶34

-3-

¶35

�%&&��'��(�� %)��(+,-(��*�� !�� !��

¶36

%&��'��(��%)�� (+,-(�� !�� "�� (+,*-(��+�� !��"�� #��"��+��.�%�� "��!�� !��!��

¶37

In view of above and applying the abovesaid law laid down by

¶38

the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, it is evident that since the auction in the present case was held on 16.12.2022, based on an auction notice published in the newspaper on 16.10.2022, the right of redemption of the petitioners2borrowers got extinguished after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of said notice i.e. sometime around 15.11.2022. Thereafter, the auction was conducted on 18.11.2022 and sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 was issued on 22.12.2022.

¶39

In view of the foregoing, and in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioners have failed to satisfy us that they had any right of redemption on the date when this petition was filed. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶40

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount of 35,70,000/2 is lying deposited with the Bank.₹

¶41

SANDAL SHARMA 2026.02.04 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶42

��

¶43

-4-

¶44

The respondent2Bank is directed to return the said amount to the petitioners within a period of 15 days along with admissible interest, in accordance with law.

¶45

��#

¶46

��

¶47

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

¶48

02.02.2026

¶49

S.Sharma

¶50

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No