Strict compliance with auction payment timelines under secured asset rules cannot be bypassed by inherent powers or later applications.

Strict compliance with Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is required for payment of the balance purchase price in a secured asset auction, and the extended period cannot exceed three months. The auction purchaser failed to show that the later deposits matched the time extension granted or that the amount payable, including interest, had been correctly computed. The Supreme Court held that Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to override the express statutory time limit, and that repeated miscellaneous applications seeking substantive relief in a disposed of appeal were not maintainable. The direction for issuance of the sale certificate was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the auction purchaser was entitled to a direction for issuance of the sale certificate on the footing that the balance sale consideration and interest had been paid in compliance with the earlier orders and Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, and whether such relief could be sought by a miscellaneous application in the disposed of appeal.

Analysis: Rule 9(4) required the balance purchase price to be paid within fifteen days of confirmation of sale, or within an extended period agreed in writing with the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months. The Court held that the time granted earlier had expired and that the later deposits were not shown to be in compliance with the order extending time up to two months after lifting of the lockdown. The applicant did not establish the relevant date of lifting of lockdown or the correct computation of the amount payable towards balance price and interest. The Court further held that neither Article 142 of the Constitution of India nor Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could be used to override the express statutory limit under Rule 9, and that repeated miscellaneous applications seeking substantive relief in a disposed of appeal were not maintainable.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the direction sought, and the miscellaneous application was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Express statutory conditions governing payment in a secured asset auction must be strictly complied with, and the Supreme Court's inherent powers cannot be used to enlarge or bypass those statutory limits.

---