UNION BANK OF INDIA versus RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 04-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 666 : 2023 INSC 869
666
CASE DETAILS
UNION BANK OF INDIA
v.
RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND 
M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. 
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1735 of 2022)
In 
(Civil Appeal No. 1902 of 2020)
OCTOBER 04, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Applicant-Auction Purchaser sought 
directions against the Appellant-Bank for issuance of sale letter in its favour 
on the ground that it has made the full and fi nal payment of the auction 
amount with interest in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.05.2020. 
Whether the extension of time sought by the Applicant in the various 
applications was permissible and even if permissible, whether the Applicant 
had in fact complied with the orders passed by the Court therein.
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r.9 – “Time of sale, 
issue of sale certifi cate and delivery of possession etc.,” w.r.t the sale of 
immovable secured assets through e-auction mode – Non-compliance 
– By way of instant Miscellaneous Application fi led in the disposed of 
Civil Appeal, applicant-Auction Purchaser sought directions to the 
bank for issuing the sale certifi cate in its favour – Maintainability – 
Applicant inter alia pleaded that the deposits made by it on 22.07.2022 
and 26.08.2022 be treated as due compliance of the order dated 
12.05.2020, extending the time limit by exercising the inherent powers 
of the Supreme Court u/Article 142:
Held: As per the sub-Rule (4) of r.9, the balance amount of purchase 
price payable has to be paid by the purchaser to the authorized offi  cer on 
or before the fi fteenth day of the confi rmation of sale or such extended 
667
period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the 
secured creditor, in any case not extending three months – Even if by liberal 
construction of the said sub rule, and in view of the orders passed by this 
Court from time to time in the successive applications fi led by the Applicant, 
it is presumed that the time to deposit the balance amount with interest had 
stood extended two months after February, 2022, i.e., upto 30.04.2022, 
no further extension of time as such was granted by the Court nor was it 
permissible to extend under the said statutory provision contained in r.9 
– Apart from the fact that the Applicant had not complied with the orders 
passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications fi led by 
it, and more particularly the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in M.A. No.922 
of 2020, such an application in the disposed of C.A.No.1902 of 2020, to 
pursue its strategies and to avoid judicial adjudication in the substantive 
proceedings, would not be even maintainable – Court in exercise of powers 
u/Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing 
with the subject – The plenary powers of the Supreme Court u/Article 142 
are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are 
specifi cally conferred on the court by various statutes – These powers though 
are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, 
cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the 
cause under consideration of the court – Instant Miscellaneous Application 
seeking substantive prayers fi led in the disposed of C.A. No.1902 of 2020 
being not maintainable is dismissed – Constitution of India – Article 142. 
[Paras 17-19]
Practice and Procedure – Filing of repeated applications, styled as 
Miscellaneous Applications, without any legal foundation – Deprecated. 
[Para 18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Another 
(1998) 4 SCC 409: [1999] 1 SCR 1121; Supertech Limited vs. Emerald 
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others 2021 SCC Online 
SC 3422 – relied on.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh 
AIR 1954 SC 322: [1954] SCR 1098; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara 
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Singh and Others AIR 1964 SC 358; Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar 
Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422: [1999] 1 SCR 1121; – 
referred to. 
Taylor vs. Taylor, [L.R.] 1 Ch.426 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application 
No.1735 of 2022 in Civil Appeal 

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