/2023 INSC 0376/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                                         
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3152­3153 of 2023
(@ SLP (Civil) Nos.5973­5974 of 2018)
G. VIKRAM KUMAR   ...Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD 
& ORS.                                      ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  1  of  35

08.09.2017   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Judicature   at   Hyderabad   for   the   State   of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh passed in Writ
Petition  No.31098 of 2016 and the subsequent
order   dated   08.12.2017   passed   in   Review
Petition   No.45031   of   2017   in   Writ   Petition
No.31098   of   2016,   the   appellant   and   the
auction   purchaser   has   preferred   the   present
appeals. 
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in
nutshell are as under:
2.1 That   the  respondent  no.3  herein  –  builder  had
taken loan from respondent no.2 – Bank for the
development   of   the   multi­storey   housing
project.     That   the   respondent   no.3   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   borrower)   was   not   able   to
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  2  of  35

repay   the   security   interest   to   the   Bank,   the
Bank   initiated   proceedings   against   the
borrower under Section 13 of the Securitization
and   Reconstruction   of   Financial   Assets   and
Enforcement   of   Security   Interest   Act,   2002
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   SARFAESI   Act,
2002).  The Bank attached the properties of the
borrower  under  Section  13(4) of  the SARFAESI
Act.     Against   the  measures   taken   by   the   Bank
under   Section   13(4)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act,   the
borrower   filed   S.A.   No.253   of   2012   before   the
Debt   Recovery   Tribunal   (DRT),   Hyderabad.
S.A.  No.253 of 2012 was listed before the  DRT
on   19.02.2016,   when   the   borrower   was   given
liberty   to   file   a   list   of   intending   buyers   of   the
property  and bring forth with the buyers so as
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  3  of  35

to enable the Tribunal to consider the same for
the   repayment   of   the   dues   of   the   Bank.     On
25.02.2016,   the   DRT   passed   an   order
permitting   the   Bank   to   go   ahead   with   the   sale
as   proposed   excluding   flat   to   be   identified   and
communicated by the borrower to the Bank by
29.02.2016 with full details of all purchasers to
the   bank   officials   on   affidavit   so   as   to   enable
the bank officer to exclude those flats, provided
the remaining flats are sufficient for recovery of
the dues.   The Tribunal directed that the bank
may   proceed   with   the   sale   but   shall   not
confirm   the   sale   till   the   next   date   of   hearing.
At this stage it is required to be noted that the
aforesaid   order   was   passed   by   the   Tribunal   in
view of the submissions  made by  the  borrower
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  4  of  35

that   he   had   sold   seven   flats   out   of   37   flats
which   were   to   be   sold   by   the   Bank   to   some
third   persons.     Flat   No.6401   –   flat   in   question
was not amongst the said seven flats.
2.2 A   Memorandum   of   Understanding   (MoU)   was
entered   into   between   the   respondent   no.1   and
the   borrower   with   respect   to   the   sale   of   Flat
No.6401   on   10.04.2016   for   a   lumpsum
consideration of Forty­five lakhs.  It is pertinent
to   note   that   in   the   MoU   itself   there   was   a
reference   to   some   proceedings   going   on   before
the   DRT   and   that   the   Bank   and   the   borrower
will   obtain   clearance   in   order   to   process   the
agreement   to   sale.     That   an   agreement   to   sale
was   executed   between   the   bank   and   the
borrower   for   a   sale   of   Flat   No.6401   on
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  5  of  35

16.06.2016.     At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be
noted   that   the   said   agreement   to   sale   was
executed   by   the   borrower   without
informing/obtaining any consent from the DRT
as well as the Bank and the permission, if any,
given   to   the   borrower   earlier   obtained   only   to
the   seven   flats   which   were   already   recognized
by the DRT on 25.02.2016.
2.3 That thereafter the Bank issued a public notice
on   28.07.2016   for   auctioning   the   properties   of
the borrower.  The said notice was published in
the newspaper on 29.07.2016.  The property in
question,   i.e.   Flat   No.6401   was   also   subjected
to auction.  It was placed in Lot No.1 for which
the e­auction was proposed on 30.08.2016.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  6  of  35

2.4 The   borrower   filed   an   application   before   the
DRT   praying   for   stay   on   all   proceedings   of   the
Bank   pursuant   to   the   auction   notice   dated
28.07.2016.     On   24.08.2016   the   DRT   was
pleased   to   reject   the   application   for   stay   filed
by   the   borrower.     While   rejecting   the   stay
application   and   refusing   to   grant   the   stay   as
prayed, the DRT observed as under:
“…Pending  the decision, this Tribunal has
directed   to   sell   the   property   and   the
Applicant   now   has   entered   into   an
agreement   to  be   sold   for   some   other   flats.
This   is   utter   violation   of   the   SARFAESI
action   as   also   the   direction   of   the
Tribunal.”
“7.     As   stated   hereinabove,   it   is   also
question   of   great   concern   that   the
Applicant   has   entered   into   an   agreement
with   third   party   in   respect   of   few   other
flats   i.e.   Flat   No.3202,   6401,   7101,   7202
and   3201   without   the   permission   of   the
Respondent   Bank   or   this   Tribunal.
Hence,   any   such   transaction   is   declared
as void.”
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  7  of  35

2.5 That thereafter e­auction was conducted by the
Bank   on   31.08.2016   in   which   the   appellant
also   participated.     The   appellant   was   declared
as   a   successful   bidder   with   respect   to   Flat
No.6401   in   Lot   No.1.     Accordingly,   he   made   a
payment   of   25%   of   the   bid   amount   i.e.
Rs.6,45,250/­.     The   Bank   also   issued   a
confirmation   receipt   to   the   appellant   on
31.08.2016.
2.6 That thereafter the respondent no.1 filed a Writ
Petition   No.31098   of   2016   before   the   High
Court on 14.09.2016 challenging the e­auction
notice   dated   28.07.2016   to   the   extent   it
concerns   Flat   No.6401.     The   said   writ   petition
was filed much  after  the auction  was complete
and the appellant was declared as a successful
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  8  of  35

bidder.     The   respondent   no.1   did   not   disclose
in the writ petition that the auction has already
taken place .   The appellant herein was also not
made   party.   By   impugned   judgment   and   order
dated   15.09.2016   the   High   Court   stayed   the
auction qua Flat No.6401 as notified under the
e­auction   sale   notice   subject   to   respondent
no.1 (original wit petitioner) paying to the bank
not less than 25.81 lakhs before the scheduled
date and time of the auction, failing which, the
Bank shall be free to proceed with the auction.
The Bank issued a letter to the appellant dated
20.09.2016   stating   that   the   High   Court   has
stayed  the   auction   proceedings   with   respect   to
Flat   No.6401   and   that   the   respondent   no.1
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  9  of  35

herein   has   paid   the   amount   to   the   Bank   as
directed by the High Court.
2.7 On becoming aware of the pending proceedings
in Writ Petition No.31098 of 2016 the appellant
herein   filed   an   application   for   getting
impleaded in the said writ petition and filed the
counter affidavit.  In the counter affidavit it was
specifically   stated   that   the   DRT   has   declared
the   agreement   of   sale   executed   between   the
respondent  no.1   and  the  borrower  as  void  and
that   the   appellant   is   the   successful   auction
purchaser   and   that   the   respondent   no.1   had
not  disclosed the  complete and correct facts of
the   case.     It   was   also   stated   that   the   right,   if
any,   available   to   the   respondent   no.1   (original
writ petitioner) would have been under Section
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  10  of  35

17   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   and   not   the   writ
petition   filed   by   him.     It   was   also   stated   that
the   respondent   no.1   had   not   informed   the
Court   that   the   auction   proceedings   were
already   over   at   the   time   when   the   stay   order
was   passed.     The   Bank   also   filed   the   counter
affidavit   in   the   writ   petition   seeking   dismissal
of the writ petition primarily on the ground that
an   alternative   remedy   under   Section   17   of   the
SARFAESI   Act   was   available.     The   High   Court
allowed   the   impleadment   application.     Despite
the   above,   by   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   writ
petition   filed   by   respondent   no.1   herein.     That
thereafter   the   appellant   herein   the   auction
purchaser   filed   the   review   petition   which   has
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  11  of  35

been   dismissed   by   the   High   Court.     Hence,
against   the   final   decision   of   the   High   Court   in
the   main   writ   petition   allowing   the   same   in
favour   of   the   respondent   no.1   herein   and
rejecting   the   review   application   filed   by   the
appellant,   the   appellant   –   successful   auction
purchaser has preferred the present appeals.
3. Shri   A.   Sirajudeen,   learned   Senior   Advocate
has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the   appellant.     Shri
Buddy   A.   Ranganadhan,   learned   counsel   has
appeared   on   behalf   of   respondent   no.1   –
original   writ   petitioner   and   Shri   Ananga
Bhattacharyya,   learned   counsel   has   appeared
on behalf of respondent no.3.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  12  of  35

4. Shri   A.   Sirajudeen,   learned   Senior   counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant has made
the following submissions:
(i) That   the   High   Court   has   materially   erred
in   entertaining   the   writ   petition   filed   by
respondent   no.1   which   was   against   the
steps   taken   by   the   Bank   under   Section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act namely against
e­auction notice;
(ii) That   the   respondent   no.1   being   the
agreement to sale holder had no right title
in the flat in question and therefore could
not have filed the writ petition challenging
e­auction   notice   on   the   basis   of   the
agreement to sale in his favour;
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  13  of  35

(iii) Even if the respondent no.1 had any right,
if any, in that case also he had alternative
efficacious   statutory   remedy   available
under   Section   17   of   the   SARFAESI   Act
challenging the e­auction notice;
(iv) That   there   was   suppression   of   material
facts on the part of respondent no.1 which
was   specifically   pointed   out   by   the
appellant   in   the   counter   affidavit   that   at
the   time   when   the   writ   petition   was   filed
and   the   interim   relief   was   obtained   the
auction   had   taken   place   in   which   the
appellant   was   declared   the   successful
bidder;
(v) That   in   fact   the   DRT   in   the   earlier   order
dated   24.08.2016   declared   the   sale
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  14  of  35

agreement   in   favour   of   the   respondent
no.1 by the borrower as void as the same
was entered into without prior permission
of the DRT or even the Bank; and
(vi) The   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in
relying   upon   Section   13(8)   of   the
SARFAESI Act.
4.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the
High   Court   has   not   properly   appreciated   the
fact   that   a   sale   agreement   holder   cannot   seek
redemption   of   a   property   under   Section   91   of
the   Transfer   of   Property   Act,   1882   and   cannot
be   treated   at   par   with   an   auction­sale
purchaser   under   Section   54   of   the   Transfer   of
Property   Act   makes   it   clear   that   no   interest
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  15  of  35

/charge is created upon a property only by way
of  sale­agreement.     It   is   stated   that   in   fact   the
impugned   judgment   passed   by   the   High   Court
that   the   respondent   no.1   be   able   to   seek
redemption   of   the   subject   property   which   was
attached by the Bank.   It is submitted that the
bank   attached   the   property   as   against   the
borrower and the respondent No.1 was only the
sale­agreement holder.   It is submitted that  as
such   by   virtue   of   the   impugned   judgment   and
order,   the   High   Court   has   granted   the   decree
for   specific   performance   of   the   agreement   to
sale   which   is   not   permissible   while   exercising
the   powers   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution of India.  
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  16  of  35

4.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   the
High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   observing
that   the   equity   would   be   in   favour   of
respondent no. 1 as he has deposited the entire
amount   as   directed.     It   is   submitted   that   the
High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   observing
that   if   the   sale   is   confirmed   the   respondent
no.1 will suffer greater hardship and if the sale
is not confirmed at the most, the appellant may
lose interest on Rs.6,45,250/­.
4.3 It is further submitted that as such there is no
clarity   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   on   what   exact   relief
the   High   Court   has   granted   except   observing
that the writ petition is allowed.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  17  of  35

5. While   opposing   the   present   appeal   learned
counsel   appearing   on   behalf  of   the   respondent
no.1   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in   the
present case Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act
shall     be   applicable   and   therefore   when   the
respondent   no.1   being   the   agreement   to   sale
holder   of   the   flat   in   question   agreed   to
pay/deposit   the   entire   sale   consideration   the
High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in
entertaining the writ petition under Article 226
of   the   Constitution   of   India   challenging   the   e­
auction notice.
5.1 It is submitted that as soon as respondent no.1
came   to   know   that   the   flat   in   question   which
was   agreed   to   be   sold   in   favour   of   respondent
no.1   for   which   part   consideration   was   paid   is
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  18  of  35

put   to   auction,   immediately   he   filed   the   writ
petition   showing   his   inclination   to   deposit   the
entire   amount   of   sale   consideration   which   is
permissible   under   Section   13(8)   of   the
SARFAESI  Act.     It is  submitted  that  the  object
and   purpose   of   Section   13(8)   of   the   SARFAESI
Act is to save the property from auction in case
the   borrower   and/or   the   person   interested   in
the property agrees to clear the dues.
5.2 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   at   the
relevant   time   there   was   no   concluded   sale   in
favour of the appellant, as at the relevant time
the appellant deposited only 25% of the auction
sale consideration.    It is submitted that  as per
the   catena   of   decisions   unless   the   full   sale
consideration is paid; the sale deed is executed
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  19  of  35

and/or the sale certificate is issued in favour of
the   auction   purchaser   there   is   no   concluded
sale.     It   is   submitted   that   if   the   sale   is   not
concluded,   Section   13(8)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act
shall   be  applicable  and/or   can  be  invoked.     In
support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Mathew   Varghese   v.   M.   Amritha   Kumar,
(2014)   5   SCC   610   (para   38) ;   Narandas
Karsondas   vs.   S.A.   Kamtam,   (1977)   3   SCC
247;   B.   Arvind   Kumar   vs.   Govt.   of   India   &
Ors.,   (2007)   5   SCC   745   (para   12).     He   has
also relied upon the decision of the Punjab and
Haryana   High   Court   in   the   case   of   Pal   Alloys
&   Metal   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   &   Ors.   vs.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  20  of  35

Allahabad   Bank   &   Ors.,   2021   SCC   OnLine
P&H   2733   as   well   as   the   decision   of   the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of   M/s
India   Finlease   Securities   Ltd.   vs.   Prasad
Indian Overseas Bank, 2012 SCC OnLine AP
205 . 
5.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   no.1
that   the   respondent   no.1   has   subsequently
died   and   his   heirs   including   the   widow   are
residing   in   the   flat   in   question   since   long   and
that   they   have   paid/deposited   the   entire   sale
consideration and therefore if now the appeal is
allowed   in   that   case,   they   have   to   vacate   the
premises   which   will   not   be   equitable.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  21  of  35

Therefore,   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the   present
appeal.
6. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
Bank   has   though   opposed   the   writ   petition
before the High Court, has stated that whatever
the decision, the Bank shall abide by the same.
7. Heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the respective parties at length.
8. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
what   was   challenged   before   the   High   Court   by
respondent no.1 in a writ petition under Article
226   of   the   Constitution   of   India   was   the   e­
auction   notice   which   was   pursuant   to   the
action   initiated   by   the   Bank   in   exercise   of
powers   under   Section   13(4)   of   the   SARFAESI
Act.  At this stage it is required to be noted that
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  22  of  35

e­auction   was   held/conducted   on   31.08.2016
in   which   the   appellant   participated   and   was
declared as a successful bidder and he made a
payment of 25% of the bid amount on the very
day   i.e.,   on   31.08.2016.     However,   thereafter
the   respondent   no.1   filed   the   writ   petition
before the High Court challenging the e­auction
notice dated 28.07.2016 on 14.09.2016 that  is
after   conducting   of   the   auction.     It   is   required
to be noted that against any steps taken by the
Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act
the   aggrieved   party   has   a   remedy   under   the
SARFAESI   Act   by  way   of   appeal   under   Section
17   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   to  approach  the   DRT.
Therefore,   in   view   of   the   availability   of   the
alternative statutory remedy available by way of
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  23  of  35

proceedings/appeal   under   Section   17   of   the
SARFAESI   Act,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to
have entertained the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in which the e­
auction notice was under challenge.  Therefore,
the   High   Court   has   committed   a   very   serious
error   in   entertaining   the   writ   petition   under
Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India
challenging   the   e­auction   notice   issued   by   the
Bank   in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   13(4)
of the SARFAESI Act. 
8.1 Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
the   respondent   no.1   –   original   writ   petitioner
filed   the   writ   petition   as   agreement   to   sale
holder of the flat in question.  At this stage it is
required   to   be   noted   that   earlier   against   the
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  24  of  35

measures   taken   by   the   Bank   under   Section
13(4)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   the   borrower   filed
S.A.No.253 of 2012 before the DRT, Hyderabad.
The   DRT,   Hyderabad   by   order   dated
19.12.2016   gave   the   liberty   to   the   borrower   to
file   the   list   of   intending  buyers   of   the  property
and   to   bring   forth   with   the   buyers   so   as   to
enable   the   Tribunal   to   consider   the   same   for
repayment   of   the   dues   of   the   Bank.     That
thereafter   on   25.02.2016   the   DRT   passed   the
following order:
"The Bank is directed to go ahead with the
sale   as   proposed   excluding   the   Flat   to   be
identified   and   communicated   by   the
Applicant   to   the   Respondent   Bank   by
29.02.2016   with   full   detailed   of   all   the
Purchasers   to   the   Bank   Officers   on
affidavit   so   as   to   enable   the   Bank   Officer
to   exclude   those   Flats,   provided   the
remaining   Flats   are   sufficient   for   recovery
of   the   dues.   The   Bank   may   proceed   with
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  25  of  35

the sale but shall not confirm the same till
the next date of hearing."
8.2 At this stage it is required to be noted that the
flat   in   question   namely   Flat   No.6401   was   not
the seven flats identified by the borrower to be
kept   out   of   the   auction   proceedings.     At   the
relevant   time   the   flat   in   question   was   not   sold
amongst   the   seven   flats   mentioned   before   the
Tribunal.   That thereafter during the pendency
of   the   S.A.   No.253   of   2012   and   without
obtaining   prior   approval   and/or   intimation   to
the   DRT   and   even   the   bank,   the   borrower
entered   into   the   sale   agreement   with   the
respondent no.1 on 16.06.2016.   At this stage,
it is required to be noted that in the MoU dated
10.04.2016   between   the   borrower   and   the
respondent   no.1   in   Clause   No.4   it   was
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  26  of  35

specifically provided that first the party should
obtain clearance of sale from DRT/SBH so that
they   can   process   with   further   agreement   to
sale.     Thus,   as   such   respondent   no.1   at   the
relevant   time   was   aware   about   the   pending
DRT   proceedings.     Still   the   respondent   no.1
entered   into   the   agreement   to   sale   with   the
borrower   on   16.06.2016.     At   this   stage,   it   is
pertinent to note that thereafter when the Bank
issued   a   public   notice   on   28.07.2016   for
auctioning   the   properties   of   the   borrower.
Before   the   date   of   auction,   on   24.08.2016   the
borrower   filed   an   application   before   the   DRT
praying   for   stay   of   all  proceedings  of   the   Bank
pursuant   to   the   auction   notice   dated
28.07.2016.  The DRT was pleased to reject the
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  27  of  35

said   application   for   stay   vide   the   order   dated
24.08.2016   by   observing   that   the   sale   of   the
flat   in   question   without   the   permission   of   the
Bank or  the Tribunal  is void.   The order  dated
24.08.2016   is   reproduced   hereinabove.     Thus,
as   such   the   transaction   in   favour   of   the
respondent   no.1   with   respect   to   Flat   no.6401
was   already   held   to   be   void  by   the   DRT.     That
thereafter,   after   the   borrower   having   failed   to
obtain   any   order,   the   respondent   no.1   had
straightway   filed   the   writ   petition   challenging
the   e­auction   notice   which   the   borrower   failed
to   get   any   relief   before   the   DRT.     If   the
respondent   no.1   would   have   approached   the
DRT   against   the   e­auction   notice   he   would
have   been   non­suited   in   view   of   the   earlier
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  28  of  35

order   passed   by   the   DRT   dated   24.08.2016.
Therefore,   calculatively   the   respondent   no.1
filed   the   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court
challenging   the   e­auction   notice   and   that   too
after   conducting   of   the   e­auction   on
31.08.2016   and   the   sale   in   favour   of   the
appellant   was   confirmed.     The   aforesaid   facts
were   pointed   out   before   the   High   Court   and
despite   the   same   the   High   Court   has   allowed
the writ petition which is not sustainable at all.
By   the   impugned   order   the   respondent   no.1
has   got   the   relief   which   as   such   the   borrower
failed   to   get   from   the   DRT.     On   the   aforesaid
grounds   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  29  of  35

8.3 Even   otherwise   it   is   very   debatable   whether
Section   13(8)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   shall   be
applicable in favour of a person who is only an
agreement to sale holder or Section 13(8) of the
SARFAESI   Act   shall   be   applicable   only   in   case
of the borrower who is ready and willing to pay
the   entire   debt.     In   the   present   case   the
borrower   failed   to   get   any   relief   from   the   DRT.
The   borrower   did   not   apply   and/or   invoke
Section   13(8)   and   did   not   agree   to   clear   the
entire dues.  Therefore, also the High Court has
materially erred in allowing the writ petition.
8.4 Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
as such what exact relief is granted by the High
Court is not clear.   The High Court has simply
stated   that   the   writ   petition   is   allowed.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  30  of  35

However,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   what
was   challenged   before   the   High   Court   was   the
e­auction   notice   dated   28.07.2016   which   was
already   conducted   on   31.08.2016.     Therefore,
the   writ   petition   was   filed   much   after
conducting   the   e­auction   on   31.08.2016.     No
consequential   relief   has   been   granted   by   the
High   Court.     Therefore,   also   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
is unsustainable.
8.5 Now   so   far   as   the   submission   on   behalf   of   the
respondent   no.1   that   the   respondent   no.1   has
paid/deposited   the   amount   of   sale
consideration and now the respondent no.1 has
died   his   heirs   will   have   to   vacate   the   flat   in
question   and   on   the   other   hand   the   appellant
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  31  of  35

shall   be   entitled   to   return   the   amount   of
Rs.6,45,250/­   deposited   at   the   relevant   time
being   25%   of   the   auction   sale   consideration
with   interest   is   concerned,   at   the   outset   it   is
required   to   be   noted   that   as   such   the
transaction   between   the   respondent   no.1   and
the borrower pursuant to the agreement to sale
dated   16.06.2016   was   absolutely   illegal   and
behind  the  back  of the  Tribunal  as  well as the
Bank   and   during   the   pendency   of   the
proceedings   before   the   Tribunal.     In   order
dated   24.08.2016   the   Tribunal   had   in   fact
already   held   the   sale   transaction   as   void.     As
observed   hereinabove   even   at   the   time   when
the respondent no.1 entered into the agreement
to   sale/MoU   he   was   aware   about   the
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  32  of  35

proceedings   pending   before   the   DRT   which   is
apparent from Clause 4 of the MoU referred to
hereinabove.     Therefore,   respondent   no.1
and/or his heirs cannot be permitted to get the
benefit   of   his   own   wrong   and   cannot   be
permitted   to   get   the   benefit   of   a   void
transaction.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   is   hereby   quashed
and   set   aside.     It   is   directed   that   on   the   full
payment   of   the   auction   sale   consideration   by
the   appellant   (after   deducting   the   25%   of   the
amount   already   deposited   earlier)   with   9%
interest from  the date of auction  till the actual
amount   is   paid,   to   be   paid   within   a   period   of
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  33  of  35

four   weeks   from   today,   the   sale   certificate   be
issued in favour of the appellant with respect to
Flat No.6401.   Whatever the amount is already
deposited   by   the   respondent   no.1/his   heirs
shall   be   returned   to   the   respondent   no.1   (now
his heirs) with the interest at 9% from the date
of   such   deposit   till   the   actual   date   of   return
which shall be returned within a period of four
weeks   from   today.     The   heirs   of   original
respondent   no.1   are   granted   three   months’
time   to   vacate   the   flat   in   question   and   are
directed   to   hand   over   the   peaceful   and   vacant
possession of the Flat No.6401 to the appellant
within   a   period   of   three   months   from   today   as
ordered above.
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  34  of  35

Present   appeals   are   allowed.     However,   in   the
facts and circumstances of the case there shall
be no order as to costs. 
 
……………………………J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
……………………………J.
                                  (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi, 
May 2, 2023 
Civil Appeal Nos.  3152­3153 of 2023
                                                                            Page  35  of  35