Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 – The respondent no.2 had availed of loan facility from the respondent no.1-Bank – Borrower defaulted – The Bank proceeded to auction the property mortgaged – Auction was conducted – Appellant was declared the successful bidder and he deposited total sum with the bank – Sale Certificate was also issued on 30.11.2007 – Appellant started developing the property – Respondent no.4-guarantor went before DRT and questioned the legality and validity of the auction proceeding – The DRT, allowed the ASA 232/2008 instituted by the Guarantor and set at naught the auction proceedings – However, the DRAT set aside the order passed by the DRT – Again, the High Court declared the auction to be illegal on the footing that 15 clear days notice was not issued by the Bank for putting the property in question to auction – Correctness:
Held: The Respondent No.4 (Guarantor) was wholly responsible for dragging the appellant to a very frivolous litigation and that too on a very technical point – When the High Court took up the writ petition for hearing in 2019 it went strictly by the number of days necessary for the issuance of auction notice – The High Court should have taken a practical view of the matter considering that the auction had attained finality way back in the year 2007 – It is well settled that interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such infraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course – The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case – While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction – Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not – It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties – Thus, the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 5, 8, 9,10,11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.