AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
For Admission
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant and perused the record.
Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 26th May, 2026, passed by Learned DRT-II, Kolkata in S.A. 715 of 2025 (Dhanalaxmi Traders -vs- Indian Bank) whereby Learned DRT dismissed I.A. 8092 of 2026 and fixed the matter on 28.7.2026.
At the very outset, Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the Appellant is ready and willing to pay back the demanded dues. It is further submitted that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is passed against the Appellant. It is a case of delegation of power which is not permissible under the law. The concerned Magistrate is going to take over possession of the secured assets today; hence, the proceedings may be deferred.
As per the records, auction of secured assets was conducted on 10.10.2025 wherein the Auction Purchaser has already deposited the bid amount. Although in paragraph 12 of the stay application it is mentioned that the details of the Auction Purchaser were provided by the Bank and he was impleaded as Respondent in the Securitisation Application. But curiously, Appellants have not impleaded the Auction Purchaser as Respondent in this appeal. On this count alone appeal becomes defective.
As far as the impugned order is concerned which was passed on the application challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 17.12.2025 on the ground that there is delegation of powers by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranaghat. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that delegation of powers cannot be done under Section 14 of the Act.
Perusal of the impugned order of the District Magistrate order would reflect that he has authorized Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranaghat or any other Executive Magistrate, a may be deputed by him, to execute the order wherein Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not delegated his power rather execution of the order is being carried out by the Executive Magistrate who was appointed as per the order of the District Magistrate. I do not find any illegality in the order of the District Magistrate.
As far as the issue of redemption is concerned, the sale has already been confirmed. Now the Appellants loses its right of redemption in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Celir LLP -vs- Bafna Motor (Mumbai) Private Limited & Others [(2024) 2 SCC 1]. It is held in Para 86, 87 and 88 as under :
86.Thus, what is discernible from above is that, it is the duty of the courts to zealously protect the sanctity of any auction conducted. The courts ought to be loath in interfering with auctions, otherwise it would frustrate the very object and purpose behind auctions and deter public confidence and participation in the same.
87.Any other interpretation of the amended Section 13(8) will lead to a situation where multiple redemption offers would be encouraged by a mischievous borrower, the members of the public would be dissuaded and discouraged from in participating in the auction process and the overall sanctity of the auction process would be frustrated thereby defeating the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is in the larger public interest to maintain the sanctity of the auction process under the SARFAESI Act.
88.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that as per the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, once the borrower fails to tender the entire amount of dues with all cost & charges to the secured creditor before the publication of auction notice, his right of redemption of mortgage shall stand extinguished / waived on the date of publication of the auction notice in the newspaper in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the ‘Admission’ stage. All I.A.s stand disposed of. File be consigned to Record room. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website. Order dated and pronounced in open Court.