Delhi High Court Directs Bank to Reconsider Forfeiture of Auction Deposit, Highlights Equitable Considerations in Light of Subsequent One-Time Settlement and Absence of Financial Loss

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court directed the respondent bank to consider the petitioner’s contentions as a formal representation and decide on the matter within six weeks, adhering to the applicable law. The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to reapproach the court if the bank’s decision was unfavorable or unsatisfactory.

Facts of the Case

1. Auction Initiation: The respondent bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for a residential property in Uttar Pradesh due to a default by the original borrower.
2. Petitioner’s Participation: The petitioner participated in the e-auction and emerged as the highest bidder, depositing 25% of the bid amount—₹44,25,000—on June 28, 2023.
3. Payment Failure: The petitioner was required to deposit the balance amount within a stipulated timeframe, which was later extended to September 20, 2023, at the petitioner’s request. Despite the extension, the petitioner failed to pay the balance amount.
4. Forfeiture: The respondent bank forfeited the petitioner’s deposit as per the auction’s terms.
5. Subsequent Developments: After forfeiture, the respondent bank entered into a one-time settlement (OTS) with the original borrower. Under this settlement, the borrower cleared all outstanding dues, leading to the release and discharge of the mortgaged property back to the borrower.
6. Petitioner’s Claims: The petitioner claimed that the forfeiture was inequitable since the bank suffered no financial loss due to the OTS and requested a refund of the forfeited deposit.

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner’s deposit forfeiture was justifiable under the circumstances.
2. Whether the subsequent OTS and the absence of financial loss to the bank provide grounds for refunding the forfeited amount.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Equity over Strict Enforcement: The petitioner argued that since the bank had suffered no loss after entering into an OTS with the borrower, retaining the forfeited amount would be inequitable.
2. Business Constraints: The petitioner explained their inability to pay the balance amount was due to the sudden closure of their business, which constituted unforeseen circumstances.
3. Reliance on Precedent: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Alisha Khan vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), where forfeiture was deemed inappropriate in cases involving unique circumstances and no financial harm to the enforcing party.
4. Request for Consideration: The petitioner requested the court to either order a refund of the forfeited amount or direct the bank to consider their submissions as a formal representation for relief.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Justified Forfeiture: The respondent argued that the terms and conditions of the auction were clear, and the petitioner’s failure to pay the balance amount justified the forfeiture.
2. Binding Contractual Terms: The respondent emphasized that the auction rules were binding on both parties and that there was no legal basis for refunding the forfeited amount.
3. No Precedent Applicability: The respondent contended that the petitioner’s reliance on precedent was misplaced, as the facts and circumstances of this case did not align with those in Alisha Khan vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank).

Analysis of the Law

1. SARFAESI Act Compliance: The auction was conducted under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which governs the recovery of debts and allows creditors to auction mortgaged properties in case of default.
2. Forfeiture Provisions: The terms of the auction explicitly allowed the respondent bank to forfeit the petitioner’s deposit if the balance amount was not paid within the stipulated timeframe.
3. Equity vs. Contractual Obligations: Courts have the authority to consider equitable factors in cases where strict enforcement of contractual terms leads to undue hardship or unfair results. In this case, the subsequent OTS and absence of financial loss to the bank were relevant factors.

Precedent Analysis

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Alisha Khan vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), which addressed the forfeiture of deposits in unique circumstances. In that case, the court emphasized balancing contractual obligations with equitable considerations, especially when no financial harm was sustained by the enforcing party. While the Delhi High Court acknowledged this reliance, it left the final determination to the respondent bank.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Willingness to Consider: The court noted the petitioner’s willingness to resolve the matter by treating their contentions as a formal representation rather than seeking immediate relief.
2. No Objection from Respondent: The respondent had no objection to considering the petitioner’s contentions, indicating that a fair opportunity for review could resolve the dispute.
3. Flexibility and Equity: The court emphasized that while the forfeiture was contractually justified, the bank should consider the peculiar circumstances, including the subsequent OTS and the absence of financial loss.

Conclusion

The court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

1. The respondent bank must treat the petitioner’s submissions as a representation and decide on the matter within six weeks.
2. The petitioner was granted liberty to reapproach the court if dissatisfied with the bank’s decision.

Implications

This judgment highlights the importance of balancing contractual terms with equitable considerations. It emphasizes that courts may direct parties to reassess forfeitures where subsequent developments mitigate financial harm or create unique circumstances. This case sets a precedent for auction participants seeking relief in similar situations, particularly when no loss has been incurred by the enforcing party.

Also Read – Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Contractual Dispute: “Criminal Law Cannot Be Invoked for Civil Obligations Without Evidence of Fraud or Intimidation”