Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Purchase in case of assets of dormant business, auction purchaser is not liable to discharge liability arising out of business of erstwhile owner.”
“Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.”
Any dilution of the forfeiture provided under Rule 9(5) of SARFAESI Rules would result in entire auction process under SARFAESI Act being disregarded by mischievous auction purchasers through sham bids, thereby undermining the overall object of the Act of promoting financial stability, reducing NPAs and fostering a more efficient and streamlined mechanism for recovery of bad debts.
The respondents in the instant matter constituted the borrower, guarantor and the bank (secured creditor), while the appellants were the auction purchasers.
The Court was called upon to decide as to while calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit and whether while calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets is required to be adjusted and/or appropriated towards the amount of pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.