Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an auction purchaser’s miscellaneous application for a sale certificate in a disposed-of appeal. The purchaser had not paid within the extended deadline, and later deposits did not establish compliance. Article 142 could not supplant the statutory payment requirements. A substantive sale-certificate direction could not be obtained through this application; other lawful remedies, including proceedings for refund, remained open.
Issues
- Whether delayed deposits complied with the Court’s extension for payment of auction consideration.
- Whether Article 142 or Section 148 CPC permitted the further extension sought.
- Whether a substantive sale-certificate direction could be sought by miscellaneous application in the disposed-of appeal.
Provisions considered
- Rule 9(4), (5) and (6), Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002Payment within the prescribed or permissible extended period conditions entitlement to a sale certificate. The statutory requirements prevented treating the purchaser’s belated payments as due compliance through a further extension. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe power to do complete justice complements statutory powers but cannot supplant the substantive law governing the sale and payment deadlines. (¶ 17)
- Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The provision did not justify the requested enlargement; the Court noted its thirty-day limit on extension of a period earlier fixed by the Court. (¶ 17)
Held
- Even on the lenient assumption that the pandemic-related extension ran until two months after February 2022, the purchaser had to pay the full balance with interest by 30 April 2022. It did not do so, and no subsequent order specifically extended that deadline. Leaving payment open pending consideration did not itself grant enlargement. (¶¶ 4, 13, 15, 16)
- The purchaser failed to explain when lockdown ended, the applicable lending rate, or how its later principal and interest deposits satisfied the order of 12 May 2020. Receipt of those deposits did not establish timely compliance or entitlement to the requested certificate. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Further extension could not be obtained under Article 142 by overriding Rule 9’s substantive requirements, nor was Section 148 a basis for the enlargement sought. (¶ 17)
- The application sought substantive relief in an already disposed-of appeal and was not maintainable. Repeated miscellaneous applications could not substitute for substantive adjudication. The status of the underlying DRT or DRAT proceedings was unclear, and the purchaser remained free to pursue other permissible remedies or appropriate refund proceedings. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
Miscellaneous Application No. 1735 of 2022 dismissed. Liberty preserved to seek other lawful remedies for the relief claimed or to institute appropriate proceedings for refund; no refund or sale certificate was ordered.