GANGTOK, India, Aug. 29 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on Aug. 13:

The moot question 1. The question that falls for determination is whether the writ petition filed in the year 2020 by the auction purchaser who had participated in an auction sale of the immovable property of the secured creditor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act) in the year 2011 but failed to pay the deposit of 25% of the sale price as required under Rule 9(3) or pay the balance within the time frame under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (the SI Rules), should be allowed?

The parties 2. Meena Jha (the petitioner) was the auction purchaser who has sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the State Bank of India (respondent no.1) the secured creditor, its Chief Manager-cum-Branch Manager (respondent no.2), the Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal (respondent no.3), Akhileshwar Prasad (respondent no.4)-the borrower, his wife Laxmi Devi (respondent no.5), the District Collector (respondent no.6) and the State of Sikkim (respondent no.7).

Facts

3. Before this Court examines the legal issues arising in the present writ petition it would be important to set out the relevant sequence of events:

(i) On 26.11.2007 the respondent no.4 was sanctioned a housing loan by the respondent no.1. The property was mortgaged with the respondent no.1. The property was in fact a leasehold property owned by one Shirshak Gurung. The lease deed dated 29.03.2008 granted lease of the property to the respondent no.4 as the lessee. The lease deed permitted mortgage of the property and allowed the respondent no.4 to avail loan from any bank/financial institution on the condition that the respondent no.4 shall repay such loan. It further permitted the respondent no.4 to transfer/mortgage the property i.e. the land and the building constructed thereon. The lease deed specifically provided that if the respondent no.4 failed to repay the loan with interest the same could be recovered by disposal of the property and in such an event even the lessor shall not raise any objection at all.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/201100000132020_33.pdf

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.