01Facts
The petitioner purchased secured property at a SARFAESI e-auction on 23 February 2023 for ₹10,21,89,000, paid the bid amount and registration charges, and received a registered sale certificate.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 4–5Although the bank had taken symbolic possession, the petitioner was not given physical possession until 31 May 2025. The bank had applied under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in May 2023, but the application was returned for defects and re-presented in April 2024; subsequent proceedings brought by persons claiming to be tenants and a guarantor also delayed delivery.
¶ 7–11 · pp. 6–8 · ¶ 19 · pp. 12–14The petitioner sought interest at 15% per annum on the amounts paid, claiming ₹4,14,00,169.19, as compensation for the delay.
¶ 1, 11 · p. 2, 802Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest or compensation for the period between payment of the auction amount and delivery of physical possession.
¶ 1, 11, 20, 28 · p. 2, 8, 15, 19ii.2. Whether the delay in delivering possession was attributable to the bank, or was excused by the auction terms and intervening proceedings.
¶ 20–27 · pp. 15–1803Law Applied
The judgment refers to the bank’s enforcement under Sections 13(2) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the sale procedure under Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
¶ 2, 7 · p. 2, 6In assessing responsibility for the delay, the Court relied on the auction conditions: bidders were responsible for inspecting and satisfying themselves about the assets; the sale was on an “as is where is,” “as is what is” and “whatever there is” basis; and the bank had taken symbolic or constructive possession.
¶ 21–25 · pp. 14–16The petitioner cited *Vishal Kumar v. State of Bihar*, LPA No. 615 of 2025, and the Supreme Court decisions in *Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India* and *Dr. Poornima Advani v. Government of NCT* in support of compensation and interest. The Court distinguished *Vishal Kumar* on the ground that the delay there was attributable to the bank, whereas it found intervening circumstances in this case.
¶ 14, 27 · pp. 9–10, 18Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 13Section 14
04Reasoning
The Court found that the bank had initiated Section 14 proceedings within approximately two months of the sale certificate, but the application was returned for defects and later proceedings—including applications by persons claiming to be tenants and a guarantor’s securitisation application—intervened before possession was delivered.
¶ 19–20 · pp. 12–15It also considered that the petitioner had been informed of the symbolic-possession status and the auction’s “as is” conditions, and that the bank had notified the petitioner of related insolvency and liquidation proceedings.
¶ 21–26 · pp. 14–17On that basis, the Court concluded that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the bank’s control, rather than by bank inaction warranting compensation.
¶ 20, 26–27 · pp. 15, 17–1805Holding
The Court answered the claim for compensation in the negative, holding that the petitioner’s demand for interest was unsustainable in the circumstances.
¶ 28 · p. 19The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
¶ 28 · p. 19Original Court PDF
ELAKAYEM AUTO ANCILLARIES (P) LTD.,vsTHE UNION BANK OF INDIA,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
