I. Background and Introduction
The case involves N. Ramalinga Iyer and its partner N. Natarajan, Ernakulum, in a dispute with Syndicate Bank over the redemption of mortgage properties under the SARFAESI Act (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002).
II. Initiation of SARFAESI Proceedings and Auction
The appellants failed to clear their financial liabilities, prompting Syndicate Bank to initiate SARFAESI proceedings. The bank proceeded to auction the properties, and the sale was confirmed.
III. Writ Appeals and Court Proceedings
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Single Judge, the appellants filed writ appeals. Chief Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh and the High Court of Kerala considered the circumstances, noting that the appellants eventually cleared the dues pending the writ appeals.
IV. Legal Precedent and Equity of Redemption
The court referred to the legal precedent, citing the case of Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, emphasizing that the equity of redemption persists until the sale is completed by a registered deed.
V. Cancellation of Sale and Refund
Due to the complete payment of bank dues and the auction purchasers depositing compensation interest, the High Court decided to cancel the sale. The court directed the refund of the deposited money to the auction purchasers with interest.
VI. Procedural Matters and Jurisdiction
Addressing procedural matters, the court rejected the argument to send the case back to the Tribunal, asserting that once dues are fully paid, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is extinguished. The court clarified that the appeal was maintainable, having been disposed of under both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
VII. Court's Directives and Conclusion
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ appeals, setting aside the sale and the sale certificate. The court directed the return of the auction purchasers' money with interest and ordered the bank to hand over possession of the security to the appellants. The court emphasized that, despite settling the dues, the appellants could pursue any further relief from the bank
