TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The chequered history of the long-drawn litigation between the parties may be summarized as under: - (i) The appellant in the Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 is a bank, a body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Respondent No.1-Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. claimed to be the owner of the Subject Property, the Respondent No.2-Manindra Chandrasen and Respondent No.3-Sharad Chandrasen claimed to be in the possession of the subject property, Respondent No.4- Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No.5-Zoom Vallabh Steel Ltd. were the borrowers. In order to secure the credit facilities/ loan granted by the Appellant Bank to the Respondent No.4 and 5, the Respondent No.1 on 15.04.2005 had mortgaged its interest in the subject property to the Appellant Bank. (ii) The Respondent No.4 & 5 having failed to repay the credit facilities/ loan granted by the appellant bank, the proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act') were initiated by the Appellant Bank in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the DRAT, where no pre-deposit was required, had filed a review petition before the High Court. The said review petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 16.12.2019. (ix) The Appellant Bank, being aggrieved by the observations made by the High Court in the order dated 25.11.2019, with regard to the pre-deposit, preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.28608 of 2019), and the Respondent no.6 also being aggrieved by the order of the High Court passed on 16.12.2019 dismissing its review petition, preferred an appeal being the Civil Appeal No.1903 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.1753 of 2020) before this Court. (x) This Court by a common judgment and order dated 02.03.2020 allowed both the said appeals by setting aside the orders dated 25.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court in so far as it was observed therein that pre-deposit was not required. This Court to be precise, passed the following order: - "11. In view of the above discussion, we set aside both the orders dated 25.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 of the High Court in so far as they hold that predeposit is not required and all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent No.1 in the said application had also sought action against the officials of the Respondent-Bank and the Applicant M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd. alleging fraud, collusion, and conspiracy. (xvi) On 11.07.2022, the court passed an interim order in the said applications directing to list the matter on 26.07.2022 and observed: "As at present, we have not passed any order, whether on the prayer for enlargement of time, as sought for by the respondent no.6 or on the other prayer for not granting any other enlargement but, we still leave it open for the respondent no.6 to make the requisite payment before the next date. We see no more at present." (xvii) In view of the said order passed by the court on 11.07.2022, the Applicant deposited further amount of Rs.34,41,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Crores Forty-One Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) after deducting 1 percent TDS of the total auction purchase value with the bank on 22.07.2022. (xviii) The Applicant (original Respondent No.6) thereafter filed an application being I.A. No.107669 of 2022 praying for waiver or reduction of interest amount a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen the Applicant has also not complied with the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Respondent no.1 has also alleged collusion between the Applicant and the Appellant Bank. The other Respondents no.2 to 5 have also broadly supported the contentions raised by the Respondent no.1. The Appellant Bank has filed the affidavit in reply on 23.11.2022 relying upon its earlier affidavit filed with regard to the status report dated 06.08.2022 (Annexure A7 of the M.A. paper book). It has been contended inter alia that even if the lockdown was considered to be in operation till the end of February 2022, then also the full payment as per the Court's order dated 12.05.2020 should have been made on or before 30.04.2022, but the same was not made. 4. It may be noted that none of the parties has placed on record any material to show as to on which particular date the lockdown was lifted in the state of Maharashtra. However, taking note of the orders passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020, extending period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts and Tribunals, including this Court, on account of the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, it may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price. [(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e., on the same day or not later than next working day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five percent of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again.] (4) The balance amount of 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, in any case not exceeding three months]. (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. (6) On c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorized Officer exercising the power of sale would issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the form prescribed under the Rules. 8. Now, it is well settled proposition of law that when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Taylor vs. Taylor, [L.R.] 1 Ch.426 approved by the Supreme Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others AIR 1964 SC 358 and in Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422. 9. In the instant case, out of the total bid amount of Rs.65.62 Crores finalized on the date of auction sale i.e., 11.11.2019, the Applicant had deposited an amount of Rs.31,20,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Crores Twenty Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only with the bank and was required to deposit the balance amount with the authorized officer of the bank on or before the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant thereafter deposited with the bank a sum of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/- (Rupees Seven Crores Seventeen Lakhs Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Nine and Forty-Five paise) towards the interest amount on 26.08.2022. 15. From the afore-stated state of affairs, it appears that the extension of time granted by the court vide the order dated 12.05.2020, which was selflimiting, had lapsed or expired at least by 30.04.2022 as per the version of the Appellant Bank. Thereafter, there was no order passed by the court specifically extending the time limit. Significantly, there is no clarification made by the Applicant M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd., as to how the deposit of Rs.34,41,50,000/- on 22.07.2022 and the deposit of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/- on 26.08.2022 made with the Appellant Bank were in due compliance of the orders passed by the Court from time to time and particularly of the order dated 12.05.2020. When the Court had passed the order on 12.05.2020 extending the time to deposit the remaining amount till two months after lifting of the lockdown and to pay interest at the lending rate for the period starting from 20.03.2020 till the date of the deposit, it was incumbent on the part of the App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes. These powers though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court. As observed by this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Another (1998) 4 SCC 409, Article 142 even with the width of its amplitude cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring the express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly. Even Section 148 of CPC does not permit the court to extend the time limit beyond thirty days of the time limit fixed by the court earlier. 18. It is pertinent to note that the instant Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking substantive prayer/ direction against the Appellant Bank for the issuance of the sale certificate on the ground that the Applicant has made full and final payment of auction amount with interest in terms of the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in M.A. No.92....