RAKESH BIRANI (D) THROUGH LRS. versus PREM NARAIN SEHGAL & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 21-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
RAKESH BIRANI (D) THROUGH LRS.
v.
PREM NARAIN SEHGAL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3156 of 2018)
MARCH 21, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002: r.9 –
Interpretation of – Period of 15 days for making the deposit of
remaining 75% whether would start from the date of communication
of confirmation of sale or from the date of auction – Held: r.9(2)
makes it clear that after confirmation by the secured creditor the
amount has to be deposited – r.9(3) also makes it clear that period
of 15 days has to be computed from the date of confirmation – It is
only after confirmation is made under rule 9(4) that the amount has
to be deposited and on failure to deposit the amount, 25% amount
deposited earlier has to be forfeited and property has to be resold
– In the instant case, the provisions had been fully complied with by
the auction purchaser by making the deposit of 75% of the amount
from the date of confirmation of sale – Sale certificate was rightly
issued to the auction purchaser – Auction could not have been set
aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 3156
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 955 of 2014.
Manohar Pratap, Raja V. Naik, Ms. Manju Jetley, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Satyajit A. Desai, Vikram D. Chauhan, Rajesh Lalwali, Ms. Anagha
S. Desai, Rajesh Kumar-I,  Gaurav Kumar Singh, Anant Gautam, Aakash
Sehrawat, V. Govinda Ramanan, Soumu Palit, Advs. for the
Respondents.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 750
 750
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
         O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The auction purchaser has come up in this appeal against the
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
affirming the judgment passed by the Single Bench.
3. The brief facts in the present case are that the auction of the
property was held on 14th February 2013.  The appellant was the highest
bidder.  He offered a bid of Rs.38.30 lakhs and deposited a sum of
Rs.3,80,500/- as earnest money on 1st February 2013. He further deposited
25% of the auction amount of Rs.5.80/- lakhs on 15th February 2013 and
remaining amount of Rs.28,69,500/- on 13th March 2013. The auction
purchaser claimed that he was intimated regarding confirmation of sale
by the Authorised Officer of the secured creditor by letter dated
27th February 2013.  As soon as he was intimated of the confirmation,
he further deposited the 75% of the auction amount on 13th March 2013
within 15 days of confirmation of sale.
4. The owner and principal borrower whose property was sold in
auction questioned the same by way of filing a writ petition.  The Writ
Petition (Civil) No.20653 of 2013 was filed by the respondent. The Division
Bench passed the order on 25th April 2013 that as the property has
already been auctioned, directed the respondent to file an appeal under
the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act of 2002”).  Thereafter, an appeal was filed that was registered
as S.A. No.113 of 2013.  The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad vide
order dated 19th December 2013, has set aside the sale, the order was
confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as well as by the
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.  Hence, the
present appeal by the auction purchaser.
5.  The main question that arises for our consideration in the appeal
is, from which date the period of fifteen days would start for making the
deposit of remaining 75 percent; from the date of communication of
confirmation of sale or from the date of the auction.  The aforesaid
dates are not in dispute.  The decision depends upon the interpretation of
Rule 9 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “the
2002 Rules).  Rule 9 of the 2002 Rules reads as under:
RAKESH BIRANI (D) THROUGH LRS. v. PREM NARAIN
SEHGAL & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
“9. Time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of
possession, etc.-
(1)   No sale of immovable property under these rules, in the first
instance, shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the
date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers
as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of
sale has been served 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.