G. VIKRAM KUMAR versus STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

G. VIKRAM KUMAR versus STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 challenging an e-auction notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act because an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 to the DRT was available; moreover the agreement to sell in favour of respondent no.1 was held void by the DRT as entered into during the pendency of proceedings without permission, so respondent no.1 could not obtain relief in writ jurisdiction. The High Court order was quashed and set aside and the auction purchaser (appellant) was directed to be issued a sale certificate upon full payment with directions for refund and vacation by respondent's heirs.

Parties
Appellant: G. Vikram Kumar; Respondent: State Bank of Hyderabad & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 08.09.2017 in Writ Petition No.31098 of 2016 and Review Order Dated 08.12.2017
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Security Interest, SARFAESI Act Section 13(4) and Section 13(8), Appeal Under Section 17 SARFAESI Act to DRT, Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226, E Auction Procedures, Validity of Agreement to Sale During Attachment
Banking and Finance Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Security Interest SARFAESI Act Section 13(4) and Section 13(8) Appeal Under Section 17 SARFAESI Act to DRT Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 E Auction Procedures +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. Vikram Kumar

Appellant

State Bank of Hyderabad & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 08.09.2017 in Writ Petition No.31098 of 2016 and Review Order Dated 08.12.2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court could entertain a writ under Article 226 challenging an e-auction notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act when an alternative remedy under Section 17 was available
  2. 2 Whether Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act could be invoked by a person who was only an agreement-to-sale holder and not the borrower
  3. 3 Whether an agreement to sell executed by the borrower during pendency of DRT proceedings without permission is void and whether such a person can get relief in writ jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 challenging an e-auction notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act because an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 to the DRT was available; moreover the agreement to sell in favour of respondent no.1 was held void by the DRT as entered into during the pendency of proceedings without permission, so respondent no.1 could not obtain relief in writ jurisdiction. The High Court order was quashed and set aside and the auction purchaser (appellant) was directed to be issued a sale certificate upon full payment with directions for refund and vacation by respondent's heirs.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2017 and review order dated 08.12.2017 quashed and set aside
  • On full payment of the auction sale consideration by the appellant (after deducting the 25% already deposited) with 9% interest from the date of auction till actual payment, to be paid within four weeks, the sale certificate shall be issued in favour of the appellant with respect to Flat No.6401