Patna High Court delivered nine judgements on October 15, 2025 in Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Jhabu Kumar Ram vs. The Union of India, The Union of India vs. Vishwa Mohan Kumar (In person), Raj Kishore Pandey vs. The State of Bihar, Vandna Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Javahar Prasad @ Jawahar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, Dinesh Kapar vs. The Collector, Lakshman Sharma @ Lakshman Mandal vs. The State of Bihar and Vinod Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Saran.
In Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 11-page long judgement dated October 15, 2025, wherein, it set aside the 3-page long order dated April 29, 2025 by Justice A. Abhishek Reddy.
In the penultimate paragraph, the Division Bench concluded:''18. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, failed to appreciate that the appellant’s claim for interest was not based on any commercial bargain but on principles of equity, fairness, and accountability. Even if the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 do not expressly provide for payment of interest in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits grant of just and equitable relief to ensure that a party is not made to suffer for reasons not attributable to them."
The judgement concluded: "19. Accordingly, this Court holds that the appellant is legally entitled to interest on the amount of 1,87,75,000/-, as the retention of such a substantial sum by the Bank without corresponding delivery of possession was wholly unjustified. Appellant however cannot be granted interest from 19.06.2024 to 18.09.2024 as handling process time for the Bank would be around ninety days from the date of deposit, which has to be taken into account. The rejection of this claim by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and stands set aside to that extent. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the appellant simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of 1,87,75,000/- for the aforesaid₹ period i.e, from 19.09.2024 (the date of deposit) till 11.02.2025 (the date of delivery of possession), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment.'' The judgement was authored by Justice Sinha.
Justice Sinha observed:''This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Bank, having accepted the entire consideration amount, was under an obligation—both legal and equitable—to deliver possession within a reasonable time. The plea of the Bank that the delay was due to pendency of litigation or the conduct of the borrower cannot absolve it of the responsibility to safeguard the interests of the bona fide auction purchaser. Once the sale was confirmed and the amount was accepted, the Bank became a trustee of the deposited funds to the extent that it could not unjustly retain or utilize the same without extending possession to the purchaser. The conduct of the Bank in withholding possession for nearly eight months, despite receiving full payment, has caused demonstrable financial prejudice to the appellant, who was deprived of the use of both his funds and the property.''
In his order dated April 29, 2025 in Vishal Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna & Ors. (2025), Justice Reddy recorded that pursuant to the order dated April 23, 2025, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank stated that he has necessary instructions from the Bank stating that the Bank is ready to register the sale certificate/ sale-deed in favour of the petitioner subject to the final outcome of the S.A. No. 66 of 2024 which is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Patna. Taking note of the same, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent-Bank to register the sale certificate/sale-deed in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of his order.
The counsel appearing on behalf of White house Apartment owners Association, the respondent No. 7 had prayed for safeguarding the interest of the association as the sale of the subject property was on as is where is basis and that there are dues of maintenance pending on the subject property and that the petitioner may be directed to pay the same.
Justice Reddy observed: ''This Court is not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the respondent No. 7 as the writ petition is not filed by the respondent No. 7. However, liberty is granted to the respondent No. 7 to avail the legal remedies as available to them under the law for recovery of any maintenance dues, if any over the subject property.''
The counsel for the petitioner had prayed the High Court to direct the respondent-Bank to pay interest on the amounts paid by the petitioner from June, 2024, till the registration of sale certificate/ sale deed. Justice Reddy observed: ''this Court is not inclined to grant the said relief as the amount is deposited pursuant to the participation of the petitioner in the auction conducted by the Bank for sale of the mortgaged property and the delay caused in registration of the sale certificate/ deed cannot be ground for paying any interest, therefore, prayed is rejected. 4. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.''
No comments:
Post a Comment