- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Technology and Property industries
Imagine you are at an auction, the property of your dreams is gavelled away, but what if the true owners, moments after the sale, arrive with enough money to clear their debt? Do they still have a right to redeem their property? Or does the sanctity of auction prevail? This was not a hypothetical nightmare but lived reality in the case of M. Rajendran & Ors vs. M/S. KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt Ltd & Ors. The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest ("SARFAESI") Act, 2002, a borrower's right to save their property by clearing all dues is permanently lost the moment the bank publishes an auction notice. The Court held that this strict deadline, introduced by a 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) of the Act, applies even to loans taken out before the law was changed, so long as the default and auction proceedings occurred after its enforcement.
The Legal Tussle
The case of M. Rajendran & Ors. (appellants/buyer) is a story of a concluded property auction that was unexpectedly reversed, leaving the successful buyer in a legal dispute. The dispute began after a company, M/S KPK Oils and Proteins Pvt. Ltd and Ors (respondents/borrowers), defaulted on its business loan, leading the bank to auction their mortgaged property to recover its money. The appellants purchased the property for over INR 1.25 Crore and received a valid Sale Certificate, seemingly concluding the transaction. Despite the setback, the borrowers remained persistent. They initially challenged the sale before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT") but were unsuccessful. Undeterred, they filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court, which ultimately ruled in their favour, setting aside the sale and allowing them to reclaim the property. This left the appellants, who had fully paid for the property, caught in a legal quagmire and ultimately approached the Supreme Court for relief.
The Legal Issue: When and How Does Redemption End?
This tug-of-war raised a fundamental question: Does the borrowers right to redeem the property truly vanish the moment the auction is concluded, or does it linger like a faint hope until the deal is fully and finally registered? The heart of the debate was Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, which had been amended in 2016 to stipulate: the right of redemption survives only until "the date of publication of the auction notice" and not beyond, even if actual payment or registration drags on.
The Supreme Court's Analysis: Drawing the Line
The Supreme Court, after a panoramic review of property law, SARFAESI's legislative history, and precedents, recognised the legislative intent for finality in bank auctions. The SARFAESI Act is not just another recovery tool it is meant to sidestep the very delays and uncertainties that once plagued DRT and civil court proceedings. The amended Section 13(8), said the Court, draws a bright line: after the publication of the auction notice, the borrower's right to redeem iscurtained once the process moves past this, there's no going back, except for truly exceptional circumstances (e.g., fraud or collusion). The Supreme Court was clear: the publication of the auction notice is the cut-off, not the later sale certificate, payment, or registration. The Court also cleared up a huge procedural mess about what 'publishing a notice' really means. The Court held that it is not a series of separate and confusing steps. The Court described it as a 'single composite notice.' This means that all the actions the bank must take, ranging from personally informing the borrower, putting an ad in the newspaper, to posting a notice on the property, are all part of one single announcement. The 30-day countdown to the actual auction day only begins once the last of those announcements is made. This creates a fair, clear, and final timeline.
The Court explained that the right of redemption is not a contractual right born from the loan agreement, but a statutory right granted by law. The Court decisively overruled the High Court's judgment, upholding the rights of the auction purchaser and warning against applying vague equitable principles to undermine legislative clarity.
Final Thoughts
TheRajendrancase is a cautionary tale: by affirming that auction buyers cannot be forced to relinquish properties for borrower redemption, the Court has provided much-needed certainty and protection to investors. This ruling acts as a shield, safeguarding buyers from the risk of losing their investment after the transaction is complete. With this clarity, auction participants can now proceed with greater confidence, knowing that once a deal is done, it is truly final. For banks, the judgment removes a major obstacle in the recovery of public funds tied up in non-performing assets, making the process more streamlined, effective, and predictable. For borrowers, the message is direct and urgent: the clock is ticking, and it stops much faster than it used to before the 2016 amendment. Any attempt to retain ownership must be made before the auction is publicly announced. Delay is no longer an option. In essence, this ruling brings balance to the system offering certainty to buyers, urgency to borrowers, and a call for reform to lawmakers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
