LexM.S. SANJAY versus INDIAN BANK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1588 : 2025 INSC 177 M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 2025) 29 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration An auction was conducted on 31.07.2007 and sale certificate was issued on 30.11.2007. The respondent no.4-guarantor questioned the validity of auction proceedings. In 2019, the High Court declared the auction to be illegal. Whether the High Court failed in noticing equitable consideration in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 – The respondent no.2 had availed of loan facility from the respondent no.1-Bank – Borrower defaulted – The Bank proceeded to auction the property mortgaged – Auction was conducted – Appellant was declared the successful bidder and he deposited total sum with the bank – Sale Certificate was also issued on 30.11.2007 – Appellant started developing the property – Respondent no.4-guarantor went before DRT and questioned the legality and validity of the auction proceeding – The DRT, allowed the ASA 232/2008 instituted by the Guarantor and set at naught the auction proceedings – However, the DRAT set aside the order passed by the DRT – Again, the High Court declared the auction to be illegal on the footing that 15 clear days notice was not issued by the Bank for putting the property in question to auction – Correctness: Held: The Respondent No.4 (Guarantor) was wholly responsible for dragging the appellant to a very frivolous litigation and that too on a very technical point – When the High Court took up the writ petition for hearing in 2019 it went strictly by the number of days necessary for the issuance of auction notice – The High Court should have taken a practical view of the matter considering that the auction had [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1589 M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank & Ors. attained finality way back in the year 2007 – It is well settled that interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such infraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course – The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case – While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction – Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not – It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties – Thus, the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 5, 8, 9,10,11] Case Law Cited Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana [1980] 1 SCR 1170 : (1980) 2 SCC 437; Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 SCR 1217 : (1980) 1 SCC 416 – referred to. List of Acts Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Extraordinary Jurisdiction; Article 226 of the Constitution; Auction Notice; Frivolous litigation; Interference by the Writ Court; Mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms; Legal formulations; Equitable situation. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2019 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 47721 of 2017 1590 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties S N Bhat, Sr. Adv., D P Chaturvedi, Tarun Kumar Thakur, Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Abhay Choudhary M, Vivek Ram R, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Advs. for the Appellant. Himanshu Munshi, Anitesh Choudhary, Siddhant Munshi, Dinesh Kumar Garg, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Ms. Anu Kushwaha, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.