M/S Durjaya Estates Private Limited vs Uco Bank on 4 February, 2020
Thus, the facts in the case on hand and the facts in
Mathew Verghese's case (Supra), are entirely different
and not applicable to the facts on hand.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 139 (0.93 seconds)Documents citing
Mathew Varghese vs M. Amritha Kumar & Others on 3 November, 2014
Canara Bank, vs The Registrar, on 26 November, 2019
12. Though it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
auction purchaser that the borrower did not plead in the securitization
Application or before the Appellate Tribunal in specific terms with
regard to the alleged non-adherence to Rule 9(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, it is to be noted that in the
grounds mentioned in S.A.No. 253 of 2017, the borrower alleged that
the Bank authorities have not followed the mandatory provisions under
the SARFAESI Act while issuing the notice. It can also be noted from a
perusal of the order passed by the primary Tribunal that on behalf of
the borrower, it was argued that the Bank authorities while issuing
notices did not adhere to Rules 8(2) (3) and (4) (6) and 9(1) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. This aspect of non-
adherence to proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, was specifically urged. Obviously, the
Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration the failure on the
part of the Bank authorities in adhering the mandatory requirements
of Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, had
set aside the orders passed by the primary Tribunal. Since the ground
on which the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the sale is purely a legal
ground, even assuming that the same was not specifically pleaded by
the borrower, the order of the Appellate authority cannot be faulted.
Since, it is a settled principle of law that a question of law can be
raised even in collateral proceedings, having regard to the specific
provisions under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and
having regard to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in
the case Mathew Varghese vs. M.Amritha Kumar & Ors., the order
passed by the Appellate Tribunal, by any stretch of imagination,
8
cannot be faulted and the judgment on which learned counsel for the
Bank places reliance would not render any assistance to him. It is a
well established principle of law that unless the order impugned/action
suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity and passed/taken
in violation of principles of natural justice, a Writ in the nature of Writ
of Certiorari cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In the instant case, the said contingencies are conspicuously
absent.
Mannava Harinadh Bahu, vs Kalangi Ramesh Babu on 26 November, 2019
12. Though it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
auction purchaser that the borrower did not plead in the securitization
Application or before the Appellate Tribunal in specific terms with
regard to the alleged non-adherence to Rule 9(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, it is to be noted that in the
grounds mentioned in S.A.No. 253 of 2017, the borrower alleged that
the Bank authorities have not followed the mandatory provisions under
the SARFAESI Act while issuing the notice. It can also be noted from a
perusal of the order passed by the primary Tribunal that on behalf of
the borrower, it was argued that the Bank authorities while issuing
notices did not adhere to Rules 8(2) (3) and (4) (6) and 9(1) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. This aspect of non-
adherence to proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, was specifically urged. Obviously, the
Appellate Tribunal after taking into consideration the failure on the
part of the Bank authorities in adhering the mandatory requirements
of Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, had
set aside the orders passed by the primary Tribunal. Since the ground
on which the Appellate Tribunal had set aside the sale is purely a legal
ground, even assuming that the same was not specifically pleaded by
the borrower, the order of the Appellate authority cannot be faulted.
Since, it is a settled principle of law that a question of law can be
raised even in collateral proceedings, having regard to the specific
provisions under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and
having regard to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in
the case Mathew Varghese vs. M.Amritha Kumar & Ors., the order
passed by the Appellate Tribunal, by any stretch of imagination,
8
cannot be faulted and the judgment on which learned counsel for the
Bank places reliance would not render any assistance to him. It is a
well established principle of law that unless the order impugned/action
suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity and passed/taken
in violation of principles of natural justice, a Writ in the nature of Writ
of Certiorari cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In the instant case, the said contingencies are conspicuously
absent.
M/S Hotel Paras Garden, Through Its ... vs Central Bank Of India, Balapur Branch, ... on 10 June, 2015
"18. It can, thus, be seen that there is no conflict between the two sets of
judgments, namely, Mathew Varghese case followed in J. Rajiv
Subramaniyan case on the one hand and Ikbal case on the other hand.
In the first set of cases the interpretation given to Rules 8 and 9 of the
Rules hold that these Rules are mandatory.
Ganga Memorial And Educational Society vs The Central Bank Of India on 30 July, 2019
Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, learned counsel representing
the petitioner has submitted before this Court that both the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12574 of 2019(2) dt.30-07-2019
7/15
Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal could not appreciate
that after passing of the order dated 21.09.2016 in S.A. No. 59
of 2016 the Bank was required to hand over the possession of
the properties to the petitioners and if it was not done, all
subsequent actions were liable to be held bad in law. Learned
counsel has also argued that the valuation of the property in
question was not properly done in the subsequent round of sale
when it was substantially brought down by saying that the
property stands at the side roads whereas the fact is that the
property stands on the main road. Learned counsel then argued
that no individual notice of e-auction sale was served upon the
petitioners, therefore, the Bank had not followed the mandatory
provisions of Rule 8 (6) of the Rules of 2002. He has also relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mathew Varghese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar and others since
reported in (2014) 5 SCC 610 to submit that if the procedures
which were mandatory in nature were not followed then the
subsequent sale is liable to be held bad in law.
Sri. T.S Nataraj vs State Bank Of India on 14 December, 2022
"9. By the order impugned [Writ Appeal No. 1555 of 2009,
decided on 8-3-2010 (Ker)] , the Division Bench took the view that
the sale was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, that when
the sale was initially postponed by six weeks from 25-9-2007, the
Bank ought to have renotified the sale or at least extended the time
for receiving further tenders, particularly when only one valid
tender was received on the last date notified for sale. The Division
Bench further held that the sale was not even informed to
Respondents 1 and 2 and they were informed only after the
confirmation of the sale and after receipt of their full consideration.
The Division Bench, therefore, set aside the sale which was already
executed in favour of the appellant by imposing a condition that
Respondents 1 and 2 furnish a demand draft of Rs 2,00,00,000
from a local branch of a nationalised bank in favour of the appellant
and hand over the same to him, within a period of two months
from the date of the order. It further held that if payment was not
made, as directed, the sale in favour of the appellant would stand
1
(2014)5 SCC 610
17
confirmed and the writ appeal would automatically stand dismissed.
M/S.Sri International vs M/S.Central Bank Of India on 12 April, 2023
Therefore, the said argument that the sale certificate is issued and registered,
cannot be accepted in this case. The borrower would still be entitled to
question the validity of the sale certificate, grounds of sale, and if there is
any subsequent violation of the statutory rules. Therefore, the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Shakeena (cited supra), in
a different context cannot be applied to the present factual scenario.
Bank Of Baroda vs G S Srinivas Gupta on 3 December, 2025
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathew
Varghese v. A. Amritha Kumar and Others reported in
(2014) 5 SCC 610, held that under SARFAESI Act, the
Recovery Officer shall comply mandatory procedures viz., 30
days' clear notice to borrower of date of sale and there is
mandatory requirement of adjournment/postponement of sale
for a period of more than one month and no sale or transfer of
secured asset to be made on any subsequent date without
notifying borrower afresh with 30 days' clear individual notice
of the fresh date of sale and thus, any sale or transfer of
secured asset under SARFAESI Act in violation of the above
mandatory requirements would be held invalid.
Sr.V.J.Dhanapal vs Union Bank Of India on 17 January, 2018
13. This Court in Mathew Varghese case, further observed that the provision contained in Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is specifically for the protection of the borrowers in as much as, ownership of the secured assets is a constitutional right vested in the borrowers and protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the secured creditor as a trustee of the secured asset can not deal with the same in any manner it likes and such an asset can be disposed of only in the manner prescribed in the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, the creditor should ensure that the borrower was clearly put on notice of the date and time by which either the sale or transfer will be effected in order to provide the required opportunity to the borrower to take all possible steps for retrieving his property. Such a notice is also necessary to ensure that the process of sale will ensure that the secured assets will be sold to provide maximum benefit to the borrowers. The notice is also necessary to ensure that the secured creditor or any one on its behalf is not allowed to exploit the situation by virtue of proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
M/S.Sri International vs M/S.Central Bank Of India on 12 April, 2023
5.9 Fifthly, fall of the hammer argument relating to issue of sale
certificate and registration thereof, also does not hold water in this case,
since this is not a case where the borrower/mortgagor has kept quiet and
approaching for redressal after the issuance of sale certificate and
____________
Page 25 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.32958 & 32016 of 2022
registration thereof. As a matter of fact, when the borrower has questioned
the sale notices and also the sale proceedings, on the date, when their
SARFAESI Appeals are dismissed, i.e., on 31.03.2022, without even
waiting for the 30 days appeal period, if the bank, confirms the auction, and
completes the sale and register the sale certificate, and if the bank is
permitted to contend that the issuance of sale certificate and registration is
over, then the very provision of the appeal remedy under the SARFAESI
Act, and the further judicial review of this Court, all would become
redundant. Therefore, the said argument that the sale certificate is issued
and registered, cannot be accepted in this case. The borrower would still be
entitled to question the validity of the sale certificate, grounds of sale, and if
there is any subsequent violation of the statutory rules. Therefore, the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Shakeena
(cited supra), in a different context cannot be applied to the present factual
scenario.