SCI (21.09.2023) In Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Moto (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5542 - 5543 of 2023, Neutral Citation 2023INSC838] held that;;
The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI.
However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002
The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower.
Excerpts of the Order;
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
# 22. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:
a. The writ petition filed by the borrowers before the High Court was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and more particularly when such alternative remedy had already been availed by the borrowers.
b. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition on the ground that although the auction proceedings had attained finality and the appellant herein was declared as the successful highest bidder yet the bank was getting more amount as offered by the appellant compared to the sale bid.
c. Mere apprehension on the part of the litigant that an adverse order might be passed by a forum which was already looking into the issue cannot be a ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
d. The High Court failed to consider that in view of the amended provision of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of redemption of mortgage stood extinguished upon publication of the auction notice. If the Borrower is permitted to redeem the mortgage at the very last moment, more particularly even after payment of entire amount by the auction purchaser, then no auction would ever attain finality and indirectly, the borrower is given indefinite time to repay the outstanding amount.
e. The High Court failed to appreciate an important fact that the Bank had already confirmed the sale of the secured asset to the appellant and as such the appellant had a vested right to the secured asset. Once the sale was confirmed, the Bank in accordance with Rule 9(2) read with Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, (“Rules of 2002”) was under a legal obligation to issue a sale certificate to the appellant. The Bank could not have consented before the High Court to the borrowers’ plea of redemption. f. The High Court committed a serious error of law in considering the equities in favour of the borrowers unmindful of the fact that equity follows the law.
g. In the last, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that his client is ready and willing to make good the entire amount of Rs. 129 crore by depositing Rs. 23.95 crore with the Bank, in addition to the amount of Rs. 105.05 already deposited with the Bank.
h. With a view to fortify the aforesaid submissions reliance was placed on the following decisions:
i) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110;
ii) Varimadugu OBI Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors., (2023) 2 SCC 168;
iii) Valji Khimji and Company v. Official Liquidator of Hindustan NitroProduct (Gujarat) Ltd. and Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 299;
iv) Authorised Officer State Bank of India v. C. Natarajan and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 510; and
v) Sadashiv Prasad Singh v. Harendar Singh & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 574.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE BORROWERS
# 23. Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Nikhil Nayyer, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the borrowers made the following submissions:
a. That after the impugned order was dictated in the open court on 17.8.2023 and subsequently uploaded on the website of Bombay High Court on 26.8.2023, the following developments took place:
(i) The borrowers transferred an amount of Rs. 104 Crores to the Union Bank of India vide RTGS, having UTR No. HDFCR52023082882894716.
(ii) This was followed by the Respondent No.3, i.e., Union Bank of India issuing a No Dues Certificate dated 28.08.2023 thereby acknowledging that the borrowers do not owe any further amount to the Bank and releasing the personal guarantees as well.
(iii) Further, after the No Dues Certificate was issued by the Bank, the borrowers executed a registered Deed of Release in favour of the Tata Motors Financial Solutions Limited registered with the Joint Sub Registrar, Thane 8 having registration No. 19283/2023, whereby the second charge that the Tata Motors Finance Solutions Limited had on the second property came to be released, pursuant to payment of Rs. 15 Crore (Rs. 10 Crore on 18.08.2023 and Rs. 5 Crore on 22.08.2023 ), which came to be duly acknowledged by the Tata Motors Finance Solutions Limited.
(iv) Following this, the borrowers have also entered into a registered Agreement of Assignment of Leasehold Rights for the transfer of leasehold rights in the secured asset with M/s Greenscape L.T. Park LLP on 28.8.2023, which came to be registered before the Joint Sub Registrar, Thane 8 having registration No. 19286/2023.
b. Since there has been full compliance of the Impugned Order by the borrowers herein as well as the Bank, the appeals have essentially become infructuous.
c. The only issue which remains is the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant herein. This is an issue between the appellant and the Bank and the borrowers have no reason to come in the way of the refund of the amount to the appellant herein.
d. There is a specific direction issued by the High Court that the Respondent Bank shall immediately keep the entire amount of Rs. 105.05 crore (deposited by the Auction Purchaser/appellant herein) in a “No Lien Interest Bearing Account” and if the borrowers pay the balance amount of Rs. 104 crore to the Respondent Bank by 31.8.2023 (which it has), then the Respondent Bank shall refund the amount of Rs. 105.05 Crores deposited by the Auction Purchaser together with the accrued interest on or before 7.9.2023.
e. The High Court correctly interpreted Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The right of redemption is nowhere mentioned in the SARFAESI Act and in such circumstances, Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, ‘the Act 1882’) should be looked into. Section 60 of the Act 1882 has been interpreted to reserve the right of mortgagor to redeem the property till the stage of the same being conveyed /transferred to a third party.
f. The aforesaid interpretation is discernible from the decision of this Court in the case of Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Another reported in 1977 (3) SCC 247, wherein it has been held that:
“34. The right of redemption which is embodied in Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is available to the mortgagor unless it has been extinguished by the act of parties. The combined effect of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act is that a contract for sale in respect of immovable property of the value of more than one hundred rupees without registration cannot extinguish the equity of redemption. In India it is only on execution of the conveyance and registration of transfer of the mortgagor's interest by registered instrument that the mortgagor's right of redemption will be extinguished. The conferment of power to sell without intervention of the Court in a Mortgage Deed by itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right to redemption. The extinction of the right of redemption has to be subsequent to the deed conferring such power. The right of redemption is not extinguished at the expiry of the period. The equity of redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale.
35. The mortgagor's right to redeem will survive until there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a registered deed. In England a sale of property takes place by agreement but it is not so in our country. The power to sell shall not be exercised unless and until notice in writing requiring payment of the principal money has been served on the mortgagor. further Section 69(3) of the Transfer of Property Act shows that when a sale has been madein professed exercise of such a power, the title of the purchaser shall not be impeachable on the ground that no case had arisen to authorise the sale. Therefore, until the sale is complete by registration the mortgagor does not lose right of redemption.” (Emphasis supplied)
g. The aforesaid position has also been echoed in the case of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 610, wherein this Court held that upon a combined reading of Sections 60 and 54 respectively of the Act 1882 with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, it can be concluded that the extension of the right of redemption comes much later than the sale notice.
h. Although the decision in Mathew Varghese (supra) was prior to the 2016 amendment to the SARFAESI Act, yet its applicability has been held valid even after the amendment of the said Act. A Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in the case of Concern Readymix, rep. by its Proprietor, Smt. Y. Sunitha v. Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank and Anr., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 783 has held after juxtaposing the amended and unamended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, with respect to the right of redemption available to the Mortgagor that the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act only puts a restriction on the right of the mortgagee to deal with the property and does not speak in express terms about the equity of redemption available to the mortgagor. It was further held that the danger of interpreting Section 13(8) as though it relates to the right of redemption is if the payments are not made in accordance with Section 13(8), the right of redemption may get lost even before the sale is complete in all respects and that holding that the right of redemption would be extinguished at the stage of issue of notice under Rule 9(1) would tantamount to annulling the relevant provision of the Act 1882 which do not stand expressly excluded insofar as the question of redemption is concerned. The said judgment of the Telangana High Court was challenged before this Court vide SLP(C) D. No. 28967 of 2019 and the same came to be dismissed.
i. The view expressed in Concern Readymix (supra) was echoed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of M/s Pal Alloys and Metal India Private Limited & Ors. v. Allahabad Bank & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 2733, wherein the High Court, inter alia, considered the specific issue “(a) till what time and date can the right of redemption of the Mortgage can be exercised by the Mortgagors / Borrowers
in the light of the amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act”.
j. While answering the aforesaid question, the Court considered the report of the Joint Committee on the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (the Report) as well as the law laid down by this Court in Mathew Varghese (supra) and the judgment in Concern Readymix (supra), in order to determine whether the said right of redemption was available up to the date of transfer of the asset or only up to the date of publication of the sale notice. On a consideration of Section 60 of the Act 1882 as well as the judgment in Narandas Karsondas (supra), it was observed that: “62. Thus even if the sale of secured assets is under a special statute like State Financial Corporations Act, there is no deviation from the general principle that the mortgagor’s right of redemption is not extinguished till the execution of conveyance.”
k. It was ultimately held as below:-
“96. … that the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act merely prohibits a secured creditor from proceeding further with the transfer of the secured asset by way of lease, assignment or sale; a restriction on the right of the mortgagee to deal with the property is not exactly the same as the equity of redemption available to the mortgagor, the payment of the amount mentioned in Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act ties the hands of the mortgagee (secured creditor) from exercising any of the powers conferred under the Act; that redemption comes later; extinction of the right of redemption comes much later than the sale notice; and the right of redemption is not lost immediately upon the highest bid made by a purchaser in an auction being accepted. We also hold that such a right would continue till the execution of a conveyance i.e. issuance of sale certificate in favour of the mortgagee. A similar view has been taken by this Bench in Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mill Private Limited V/s Punjab National Bank (CWP No. 14440 of 2021, decided on 10.12.2021).
97. It would, therefore, certainly be available to the petitioners herein before the issuance of sale certificate in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3. Point (a) is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.”
l. The said judgment also considered and distinguished the judgment of this Court in Shakeena and Anr. v. Bank of India and Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 761, holding that the said case did not consider the concept of redemption under Section 60 of the Act 1882. The observations in para 30 of Shakeena are in the nature of obiter dicta as in the said case the auction had concluded prior to the amendment of Section 13(8) and in any event the sale certificate had already been issued. Thus, the question of interpretation of Section 13(8) was not directly in issue.
m. A perusal of the Report (the report of Joint Committee on the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debt Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016), more particularly para 24, indicates that the proposed amendment to Section 13(8) of the Act was intended to deal with: - “Provisions to stop secured creditor to lease or assignment or sale in the prescribed conditions”. The important thing to note is also that the report does not indicate that the Committee had considered the effect of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is a general law regarding redemption of mortgage vis-a-vis the provisions of SARFAESI.
n. The focus of the Committee in the said report is on the obligations of the Mortgagee to not create third party rights up to a certain time-period, but it is silent on the rights of the Mortgagor to exercise its redemption for which Section 60 of the Act 1882 is the relevant provision.
o. It is further necessary to note that the non obstante clause in Section 13 specifically excludes only Sections 69 and 69A respectively of the Act 1882. This section does not specifically include the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act for the time being in force" which is the standard term used in non obstante clauses. In view thereof, the legislative intent should be interpreted to only exclude Sections 69 and 69A respectively of the Act 1882 and the same does not affect the applicability of Section 60 of the Act 1882.
p. Various High Courts have consistently held that the right of redemption has to be exercised in terms of Section 60 of the Act 1882 and not under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and the amendment to Section 13(8) does not affect or take away this right in any manner.
# 24. The Telangana High Court in the case of Amme Srisailam v. Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Guntur, rep. by its Region Head & Deputy General Manager, Andhra Pradesh & Ors., W.P. No. 11435 of 2021 decided on 17.08.2022 has referred to and relied upon on Concern Readymix (supra) and Pal Alloys (supra). The Telangana High Court in Amme Srisailam (supra) in turn has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of S. Karthik & Ors. v. N. Subhash Chand Jain & Ors., (2022) 10 SCC 641. The Telangana High Court in Amme Srisailam (supra) held as under:
“44. Before we revert back to the facts of the present case, we may also refer to Sections 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act. While Section 35 says that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, Section 37 clarifies that provisions of the SARFAESI Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
45. This brings us to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 60 says that at any time after the principal amount has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, of the mortgage money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in possession or power of the mortgagee, (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof back to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to retransfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and to have registered an acknowledgement in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished. As per the proviso, the right conferred under the aforesaid provision shall not be extinguished by any act of the parties or by decree of a Court.
46. Therefore, on a careful application of Sections 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act, it is evident that the situation contemplated under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act does not exclude application of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As explained by this Court in Concern Readymix (supra), a restriction on the right of the mortgagee to deal with the property post issuance of notice for public auction is not the same as the right of redemption available to the mortgagor.
47. In so far the present case is concerned, admittedly the bid amount of the petitioner was Rs.57.00 lakhs. Though the auction was conducted on 16.03.2021 and payment was made by the petitioner within the stipulated period, there is clear dispute between the parties as regards issuance of sale certificate by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner. However, admittedly there is no registration of any sale certificate. On the other hand, the borrower had approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 for settlement of the loan account under OTS Scheme on 18.03.2021 which was recommended by second respondent on 20.03.2021 and was accepted by first respondent on 31.03.2021 for an amount of Rs.5.10 crores, which has been paid by the borrower i.e., third respondent. On the one hand petitioner's amount was Rs.57.00 lakhs which the petitioner had paid but on the other hand third respondent has paid Rs.5.10 crores as per the OTS. Lending of money, recovery of dues and entering into OTS are all commercial decisions which are taken by the banks/financial institutions in their best interest, subject of course within the statutory framework. In this case, we have already come to the conclusion that third respondent had not lost the right of redemption upon publication of notice for auction sale. If that be the position, then it should be left to the discretion of the secured creditor as to which course of action would be more beneficial to it. Evidently, the OTS with the third respondent is much more beneficial to the secured creditors i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 and as has been explained above such a course of action is not restricted or extinguished by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.
xxx xxx xxx
50. Right to property is a valuable right. Though no longer a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The interpretation which we have adopted subserves such a right. That apart, third respondent had not lost the right of redemption upon publication of notice for auction sale; his right of redemption would have been lost only upon the sale certificate getting registered which admittedly has not taken place. Therefore, the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accepting the higher OTS amount of the third respondent though after publication of notice for public auction and auction is justified and cannot be faulted.”
# 25. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed that there being no merit in the present appeals, those may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
# 26. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the following questions fall for our consideration:
(a) Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution more particularly when the alternative remedy available to the Borrowers had already been availed of?
(b) Whether the confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right?
(c) What is the impact of the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act on the Borrowers’ right of redemption in an auction conducted under the SARFAESI Act? Or in other words, what is the effect of amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act read with Section 60 of the Act 1882?
(d) Whether a Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2), can withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower?
(e) Whether the High Court under Article 226, could have applied equitable considerations to override the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed by the SARFAESI Act?
(f) Whether the right of redemption of mortgage stood extinguished upon publication of notice of auction? Or in other words till what point of time the right of redemption of mortgage can be exercised in respect of secured asset under the SARFAESI Act?
(g) Whether the decisions of Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix (supra) and Amme Srisailam (supra) lay down the correct positionof law?
# 62. It is equally well settled that the rights created for the benefit of the borrower under the SARFAESI Act, can be waived. Waiver can be contractual or by express conduct in consideration of some compromise. However, a statutory right may also be waived by implied conduct, like, by wanting to take a chance of a favourable decision. . . . . . . .
# 63. We are of the view that the failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc. before the publication of the auction notice as required by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage by the act of parties as per the proviso to Section 60 of the Act 1882. Furthermore, in the case on hand, there was no claim for right of redemption by the borrower either before the publication of the auction notice or even thereafter. The borrowers entered into the fray only after coming to know of the confirmation of auction. Be that as it may, once the Section 13(8) stage was over and auction stood concluded, it could be said that there was an intentional relinquishment of his right of redemption under Section 13(8), whereby the Bank declared the appellant as the successful auction purchaser having offered the highest bid in accordance with the terms of the auction notice.
# 68. However, with the advent of the 2016 Amendment, Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act now uses the expression “before the date of publication notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale of the secured assets” which by no stretch of imagination could be said to be in consonance with the general rule under the Act 1882 that the right of redemption is extinguished only after conveyance by registered deed. Thus, in the light of clear inconsistency between Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and Section 60 of the Act 1882 the former special enactment overrides the latter general enactment in light of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, the right of redemption of mortgage is available to the borrower under the SARFAESI Act only till the publication of auction notice and not thereafter, in light of the amended Section 13(8).
# 86. Thus, what is discernible from above is that, it is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The courts ought to be loath in interfering with auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very object and purpose behind auctions and deter public confidence and participation in the same.
# 98. It is an admitted fact that the entire bid amount was paid by the auction purchaser as observed at Para 10 of the Impugned Order. Thus, the Bank was legally bound to issue the sale certificate as per the language of Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002. The said provision employs the phrase "shall". Thus, it is an instance of mandatory provision. There is nothing more in the realm of law that the auction purchaser can do once he has made the entire payment to the Bank. The fact that the Respondent Bank failed to issue the sale certificate raises serious concerns, when there was no stay by any competent forum. Even otherwise the general conduct of the Respondent Bank has not been satisfactory. Once the entire bid price is paid and there is no stay granted by any forum known to law, the Bank is duty bound to issue a valid Sale Certificate and hand over the physical possession of the secured asset to the auction purchaser.
# 100. Bank is duty bound to follow the provisions of the law as any other litigant. It is to be noted that the Bank i.e., the secured creditor acts under the SARFAESI Act through the authorised officer who is appointed under Section 13(2). Thus, the authorised officer and the Bank cannot act in a manner so as to keep the sword hanging on the neck of the auction purchaser. The law treats everyone equally and that includes the Bank and its officers. The said enactments were enacted for speedy recovery and for benefitting the public at large and does not give any license to the Bank officers to act de hors the scheme of the law or the binding verdicts.
# 104. The proposition of law as discernible from the aforesaid decisions is that equity cannot supplant the law. Equity has to follow law, if the law is clear and unambiguous.
# 105. We summarise our final conclusion as under:
(i) The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
(ii) The confirmation of sale by the Bank under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 invests the successful auction purchaser with a vested right to obtain a certificate of sale of the immovable property in form given in appendix (V) to the Rules i.e., in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI.
(iii) In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the borrower’s right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the auction sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour of the auction purchaser, by registration of the sale certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 2002 and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction purchaser.
(iv) The Bank after having confirmed the sale under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2002 could not have withhold the sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002 and enter into a private arrangement with a borrower.
(v) The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have applied equitable considerations to overreach the outcome contemplated by the statutory auction process prescribed under the SARFAESI Act.
(vi) The two decisions of the Telangana High Court in the case of Concern Readymix (supra) and Amme Srisailam (supra) do not lay down the correct position of law. In the same way, the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pal Alloys (supra) also does not lay down the correction position of law.
(vii) The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Sai Annadhatha Polymers (supra) and the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of K.V.V. Prasad Rao Gupta (supra) lay down the correct position of law while interpreting the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.
# 106. In the result, both the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed.
# 107. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside.
# 108. The respondent Bank shall refund the entire amount deposited by the borrowers i.e., an amount of Rs.129 crore paid by them in lieu of the redemption of mortgage of the secured asset at the earliest. The appellant herein shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 23.95 crore to the Bank within a period of one week from today and subject to such deposit, the Bank shall issue the sale certificate in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the Rules of 2002.
# 109. The pending applications if any shall stand disposed of.
---------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment