Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)
M/S.Sri International vs M/S.Central Bank Of India on 12 April, 2023 cites

Mathew Varghese vs M. Amritha Kumar & Others on 3 November, 2014

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 117 - Full Document

Shakeena . vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 20 August, 2019

3.4 Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4/the auction purchasers, would submit that in this case, upon publication of the auction notice, the auction purchasers have duly participated and upon being the successful bidders, deposited 25% of the bid amount on the date of sale itself. As a matter of fact, even in respect of the balance 75%, they had made provision and the entire money was ready and lying with the first respondent/bank, in the form ____________ Page 16 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.32958 & 32016 of 2022 of fixed deposits. The moment the confirmation of sale was issued in their favour on 31.03.2022, they immediately requested the first responder/bank to appropriate the balance 75% of sale consideration from their fixed deposits and accordingly, the amount was appropriated and hence, have paid the entire amount on the same day of confirmation of the auction. The sale certificate was also issued and the same has been duly registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruppur. Thus, the title has passed on to the auction purchasers, and therefore, after the title has passed on to the auction purchasers, there was no question of payment of the balance outstanding by the borrower that too after filling of the writ petition before this Court, and there is no right of redemption available to the writ petitioners. As a matter of fact, while obtaining the interim order from this Court for depositing the entire amount, the matter was misrepresented by the writ petitioners/ borrowers, as if the sale certificate was not registered, while it was actually registered and the said fact was known to them. Had the said fact was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court would not even have directed them to deposit the entire balance amount. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would pray that the writ petitions be dismissed. ____________ Page 17 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.32958 & 32016 of 2022 3.5 In support of this submissions, apart from relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Shakeena v. Bank of India case cited supra.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 30 - Cited by 26 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

M/S Pals Alloys And Metal India Private ... vs Allahabad Bank on 23 December, 2021

The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Pal Alloys & Metal India Private Limited and Others Vs. Allahabad Bank and others2, wherein the view taken by Andra Pradesh High Court was accepted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He, therefore, prayed that since the entire amount has already been paid by the writ petitioners and they should be permitted to redeem the property.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - M S Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next