M.S. SANJAY v. INDIAN BANK
Discusses principles of statutory interpretation, equity, and discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 177
Decision Date: 29-01-2025
List of Laws
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act); General Clauses Act, 1897; Constitution of India, 1949; Rules; General Principles of Law
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act): The judgment mentions that the Bank decided to proceed under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act after the borrower defaulted in repaying the loan amount. The Bank put the property in question to auction after due compliance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT found that the respondent bank did not follow the law laid down under the Securitization Act, specifically regarding the 30-day gap in selling the property after publication of the sale notice. The DRT observed that the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank under the Securitization Act were not in terms of the provisions laid down under law.
- General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is discussed in relation to the computation of prescribed time. Section 9(1) is quoted: "Commencement and termination of time (1) In any 2 [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from", and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to"." The High Court used this section to determine that if a provision prescribes time which commences with the word "from", the first day of the period of time prescribed shall be excluded.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the remedy under this article is discretionary in nature. It notes that 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. The judgment also mentions Article 32, in the context of dealers filing writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226.
- Rules: The judgment discusses Rule 9(1) as amended by way of substitution in the year 2016. The contention of the 4th respondent was that as per the amended Rules, 15 days clear notice is sufficient if the property is brought to sale on the second occasion. The High Court stated that even though the Rule is amended by way of substitution in the year 2016, it would have no application to the facts of the present case because the sale took place in 2007, and the law as it stood on the date of sale is to be looked into.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. It states that 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. The judgment also emphasizes 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.
🔒 For Members Only