Case: Rakesh Birani Vs. Prem Narain Sehgal and Ors

2. 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. 3,90,500/- 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. 8,69,500/- 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.3. 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. 1133 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.

Court's reasoning:
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).7. In order to comprehend the rival submissions, it is necessary to ponder as to intendment of Rule 9 of the 2002 Rules which deals with the time of sale, issues of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc. Public notice of sale is to be published in the newspaper and only after thirty days thereafter, the sale of immovable properly can take place. Under Rule 9(2) of the 2002 Rules, the sale is required to be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price to the authorised officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor. The proviso makes it clear that sale under the said Rule would be confirmed if the amount offered and the whole price is not less than the reserved price as specified in Rule 9(5). It is apparent that Rule 9(1) does not deal with the confirmation by the authorised officer. It only provides confirmation by the secured creditor. Rule 9(3) makes it clear that on every sale of immovable property, the purchaser on the same day or not later than next working day, has to make a deposit of twenty-five percent of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited if any. Rule 9(4) makes it clear that balance amount of the purchase price payable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor. Thus, Rule 9(2) makes it clear that after confirmation by the secured creditor the amount has to be deposited. Rule 9(3) also makes it clear that period of fifteen days has to be computed from the date of confirmation. In this case, confirmation has been made and communicated on 27th February 2013 and within fifteen days thereof i.e. on 13th March 2018, the amount of twenty-five percent had been deposited. Thereafter, sale certificate has been issued Under Rule 9(6). Rule 9(5) also makes it clear that in default of payment within the period mentioned in Sub-rule 9(4), the deposit shall be forfeited. There cannot be any forfeiture of the amount of 25 percent in deposit until and unless the sale is confirmed by the secured creditor and there is a default of payment of 75 percent of the amount. The interpretation made by the High Court thus cannot be accepted.8. If we read the provisions otherwise then we find even before the confirmation of sale within fifteen days, the amount would be forfeited by the authorised officer who may decide not to confirm the sale that would be a result not contemplated in Rule 9(2), 9(4) and 9(5) which fortify our conclusion that it is only after the confirmation is made Under Rule 9(4) that amount has to be deposited and on failure to deposit the amount, twenty-five percent amount has to be forfeited and property has to be resold. The provisions of Rule 9(6) also fortifies our conclusion, inasmuch as it is the expression used that on confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the term of payment has been complied with sale certificate is issued otherwise the forfeiture takes place, this compliance has to be only after the confirmation of sale and not before it. Thus, various provisions of Rule 9 makes it clear that interpretation made by Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be correct.