TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer obtained a job, whichever was earlier. Repayment was to commence from 20 June 2011. In order to secure the liability, the appellant created an equitable mortgage in respect of an immovable property bearing Khasra Nos.185, 186 and 188, Central Doon, Dehradun. At the request of the appellant, the period prescribed for repayment was extended by two periods each of six months (29 June 2011 to 20 December 2011 and again upto 30 June 2012). The loan was not repaid. The account was classified as a non-performing asset on 3 September 2013. Corporation bank (the second respondent) which had disbursed the loan initiated proceedings by issuing a recall notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enfo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case as a fresh case on 28.3.2016. By the said date the petitioner will fill a supplementary affidavit annexing proof of receipt of deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the respondent Bank. The execution of the sale deed will remain stayed till 28.3.2016" From the record it is not in dispute that the appellant paid the amount of Rs. 7,00,000 by demand drafts of the State Bank of India. However, on 28 March 2016 the attention of the court was drawn to the fact that the appellant had already initiated proceedings before the DRT. The objection raised by the bank to the maintainability of the writ petition being noted, the appellant sought leave to withdraw the writ petition and to pursue the proceedings initiated by him before the DRT. Hence, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it petition, placing reliance on the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court held that the exercise of the right of redemption is permissible before the execution of the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. In this view, once the sale was complete and was registered, it was not open to the appellant to exercise the equity of redemption. The High Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mathew Varghese v M. Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610. 3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that prior to the confirmation of the sale, the appellant voluntarily offered to defray an amount of Rs. 36,00,000 towards claim of the bank and indicated his willingness to make an initial deposit of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the sale deed in April 2016. The bank had advertised the proposed sale by auction and followed all requisite procedure under law. The appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8). Having failed to do so, the appellant cannot assert an equity of redemption upon the completion of the sale and the registration of the sale deed. 5 Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act provides as follows: "(8) If the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor, and no further step shall be taken by him for transfer or sale of tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken by the secured creditor for transfer or sale of that secured asset. We find no reason to state that the principles laid down with reference to Section 60 of the T.P. Act, which is general in nature in respect of all mortgages, can have no application in respect of a secured interest in a secured asset created in favour of a secured creditor, as all the above-stated principles apply in all fours in respect of a transaction as between the debtor and secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act". 6 In the present case, the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8). The statute mandates that it is only where the dues of the secured creditor are tendered together with costs, charges and expenses before ....