MEHAR REYNOLDS Vs. JOSEMON SIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the review petition is a third party to the proceedings. Parties are referred to in this order for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner purchased a property owned by the review petitioner on 22.02.2018 in a proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act'). On the date of sale, the petitioner paid 25% of the sale price as provided under sub rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ('the Rules'). In terms of sub rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules, the balance sale price should have been paid by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale or within such extended period not exceeding three months, as may be agreed upon in writing between him with the respondent, the secured creditor. The petitioner did not remit the balance sale price within 15 days of the date of confirmation of the sale. He, however, paid the balance sale price in two instalments within the outer time limit prescribed under the Rules namely, three months. Nevertheless, the respondent cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner for non payment of the balance sale price within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale. The petitioner, in the circumstances, preferred an application for extension of time for payment of the balance sale price. The writ petition was filed thereafter for a direction to the respondent to take a decision on the said application.

(3.) When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner made available a copy of the judgment rendered by this court in a similar case, viz, W.P. (C) No.4896 of 2017, involving the very same respondent. In that case, the respondent refused to accept the balance sale price tendered by the auction purchaser within the outer time limit of three months and chose to forfeit the part payment of the sale price initially made by the auction purchaser. This court, in the said case, took the view that the delay on the part of the auction purchaser is not gross enough to decline an equitable consideration in favour of the auction purchaser, and consequently directed the respondent to accept the balance sale price with interest, costs and charges. In the light of the said judgment, this court disposed of the writ petition on the same lines and it is the said judgment that is sought to be reviewed in this proceedings.