IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

<>

ON THE 9

<>

th

<>

OF APRIL, 2025

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 2829 of 2024

<>

SMT. SWATI PATEL

<>

Versus

BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Hare Krishana Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Praveen Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent

no.1 & 2.

Shri R.D. Padraha, learned Government Advocate for the respondent

no.3.

Shri Rajesh Maindiratta, learned counsel for the respondent/intervener.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Vinay Saraf

<>

1.

<>

The petitioner, who obtained loan from respondent/Bank and

mortgaged her property has preferred the present petition seeking following

reliefs:

"i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue a writ of mandamus directing the bank authorities

to accept the amount and redeem the “mortgage of the

secured assets i.e. the house of the petitioner, in the

interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

ii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court

1 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

deems fit and proper may also be granted."

2.

<>

With the consent of parties, final arguments were heard for the

purpose of final disposal of the petition.

3.

<>

The facts sufficient to decide the present petition are as under:

3.1

<>

In 2003-2004, the petitioner availed the housing loan of Rs.12

lacs from the respondent/Bank of India after executing requisite documents

mortgaging the house with the Bank.

3.2

<>

As the petitioner failed to pay the installments in time, the Bank

declared the petitioner's account as non performing assets (NPA) on

19.10.2009 and issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 ( for short, 'the SARFAESI Act') on 06.11.2009 calling upon the

petitioner to pay due amount of Rs.10,67,236/- along with interest within a

period of 60 days.

3.3

<>

The petitioner failed to make payment of the demanded amount,

resultantly, the Bank issued a notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI

Act on 01.02.2010, which was also published in two daily news paper

namely; Dainik Bhaskar and Desh Bandhu on 07.02.2010.

3.4

<>

An auction notice was also published for the purpose of sale of

secured asset on 13.08.2010 in two news papers mentioning that the auction

will be conducted on 13.09.2010.

3.5

<>

After publication of auction notice, the petitioner approached to

Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A.No.137/2010 assailing the notice

under Section 13 (4) of the Act which was dismissed on 13.12.2010.

2 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

3.6

<>

Meanwhile, fresh auction notice was published in two daily news

paper namely; Patrika and Desh Bandhu on 12.11.2010 intimating that the

auction will be conducted on 22.11.2010.Thereafter, the auction was

conducted on 22.11.2010 and the said asset was auctioned and sold for the

sum of Rs.30.62 lacs.

3.7

<>

The said amount was deposited by auction purchaser and the

Bank after adjusting the loan amount issued a cheque in the sum of

Rs.9,63,387/- with a communication dated 28.12.2010 in favour of the

petitioner under registered AD post which was deposited in some other Bank

and was cleared and encashed on 22.01.2011 through clearance. Thereafter,

sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser.

3.8

<>

Petitioner challenged the auction proceeding conducted in

pursuance of the notice published on 12.11.2010 on various grounds

interalia; the auction was conducted in violation of the Rule 8 and 9 of the

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which contemplate that auction

can be conducted only after expiry of 30 days but the auction was conducted

within ten days from the date of publication of notice and consequently the

same was in violation of the statutory rules.

3.9

<>

The Debt Recovery Tribunal by order dated 25.09.2012

dismissed S.A.No.95/2011 filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act

seeking quashment of the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank and to

set aside the sale of the secured assets.

3.10

<>

The order passed by the DRT, Jabalpur was assailed by the

petitioner before DRAT, Allahabad in Appeal No.R-163/2012 which was

3 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

dismissed by Appellate Tribunal by order dated 30.11.2012 whereby the

action of the respondent/Bank as well as the order passed by DRT was

upheld.

3.11

<>

The petitioner assailed the order passed by the DRAT dated

30.11.2012 and the auction sale by filing petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India bearing W.P.No.239/2013 before the Division Bench of

this Court seeking relief to set aside the order passed by the DRAT,

Allahabad on 30.11.2012 and to issue directions to the respondent/Bank to

accept the auction bid amount along with interest from the petitioner and

quash the auction sale as well the sale certificate.

3.12

<>

The said W.P.No.239/2013 was dismissed by coordinate

Division Bench by order dated 19.02.2018 holding that the petitioner has

waived her right inasmuch as she has accepted the excess amount over the

loan outstanding.

3.13

<>

The order passed in W.P.No.239/2013 was assailed by the

petitioner in Special Leave to Appeal No.7644/2018 which was disposed of

by order dated 06.04.2018 with liberty to the petitioner to move to High

Court by way of filing the review petition, if so advised. The Supreme Court

also granted leave to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court once

again in the event if it become so necessary. The said order was passed after

recording the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that a contention was

raised before the High Court that the excess amount was received by

fictitious person who had opened bank account in the name of the petitioner

and the petitioner has not received the said amount and the High Court has

4 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

decided the writ petition on the premise that the petitioner has received

payment of excess/surplus amount realised upon auction sale without

recording any finding on the issue raised by the petitioner.

3.14

<>

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred R.P.No.680/2018 which was

dismissed as withdrawn in the presence of the petitioner and her counsel on

01.07.2022 and in this way, the challenge to the auction has come to an end.

3.15

<>

Thereafter the Bank approached this Court by filing

W.P.No.27173/2023 aggrieved by inaction on the part of Tahsildar-cum-

Executive Magistrate, Gorakhpur District Jabalpur to execute order of

District Magistrate, Jabalpur passed on 13.04.2011 under Section 14 of the

Act by which the Tahsildar was directed to extend the assistance for

obtaining the possession of the secured assets.

3.16

<>

The said petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Division

Bench of this Court by order dated 06.11.2023 and direction was issued to

execute the order passed by the District Magistrate within 45 days from the

date of receipt of the copy of the order.

3.17

<>

Thereafter, once again petitioner approached this Court seeking

directions to the respondent/Bank to accept the due amount and to redeem

the mortgage of secured assets by way of filing the present writ petition.

4.

<>

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

applied for loan facilities and mortgaged her property in favour of the

respondent/Bank and due to losses occurred in business, the petitioner could

not deposit the loan amount therefore, her bank account was declared as

NPA and the Bank initiated the action under the provision of the SARFAESI

5 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

Act however, till today, the possession of the secured asset has not been

handed over to the auction purchaser and the petitioner is ready to pay the

entire dues to the Bank and consequently as per the unamended provisions of

Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the

secured assets is still available. He further submits that the petitioner's right

of redemption could not be terminated on account of auction sale of the

secured assets itself and the same is still alive as the transfer of the property

has not been completed by handing over the possession to the auction

purchaser. He further submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the

petitioner assailed the validity of the action taken by the respondent/Bank as

well as illegality committed in auction sale but the same does not take away

the right of the petitioner to seek redemption of the mortgaged property as

the petitioner is still in the possession of the secured assets.

4.1

<>

. To bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has

relied on the provision of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and the

judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Narandas

<>

Karsondas v. S.A Kamtam And Another

<>

(1977) 3 SCC 247 whereby

Supreme Court has held that Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act

reserves the right of the mortgagor to redeem the property till the stage of the

same being conveyed/transferred to the third party. The relevant paragraphs

read as under:

"34. The right of redemption which is embodied in

Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act is available

to the mortgagor unless it has been extinguished by the

act of parties. The combined effect of Section 54 of the

Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the

6 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

Indian Registration Act is that a contract for sale in

respect of immovable property of the value of more

than one hundred rupees without registration cannot

extinguish the equity of redemption. In India it is only

on execution of the conveyance and registration of

transfer of the mortgagor's interest by registered

instrument that the mortgagor's right of redemption will

be extinguished. The conferment of power to sell

without intervention of the Court in a mortgage deed by

itself will not deprive the mortgagor of his right

to redemption. The extinction of the right of redemption

has to be subsequent to the deed

conferring such power. The right of redemption is not

extinguished at the expiry of the period. The equity of

redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for

sale.

35. The mortgagor's right to redeem will survive until

there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a

registered deed. In England a sale of property takes

place by agreement but it is not so in our country. The

power to sell shall not be exercised unless and

until notice in writing requiring payment of the

principal money has been served on the mortgagor.

Further Section 69(3) of the Transfer of Property Act

shows that when a sale has been made in professed

exercise of such a power, the title of the purchaser shall

not be impeachable on the ground that no case had

arisen to authorise the sale. Therefore, until the sale is

complete by registration the mortgagor does not lose

right of redemption."

4.2

<>

. He further relied on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court

in the matter of Mathew Vargese Vs. M. Amritha Kumar & Ors.

<>

(2014) 5

SCC 610 wherein the Supreme Court upon a combined reading of Section 60

and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act with Section 17 of the Registration

Act, 1908 has held that the extension of the right of redemption comes much

later than the sale notice.

4.3

<>

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by

7 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

the Supreme Court in the matter of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai)

<>

Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

<>

reported in 2024 (2) SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court has

held that in accordance with the unamended Section 13 (8) of the Act, the

right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or

transfer of secured asset i.e. the borrower's right of redemption did not stand

terminated on the date of the auction sale of the secured asset itself and

remain alive till the transfer or sale of the secured asset or is contemplated in

favour of the auction purchaser. He relied on the conclusion recorded by the

Apex Court in respect of the unamended Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI

Act which reads as under:

"110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of

the Sarfaesi Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured

asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In

other words, the borrower's right of redemption did not stand

terminated on the date of the auction-sale of the secured asset

itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour

of the auction-purchaser, by registration of the sale certificate and

delivery of possession of the secured asset."

4.4

<>

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after

auction sale and issuance of sale certificate, in view of the fact that the

property is still in possession of the petitioner, the sale/transfer is not

complete and therefore, the petitioner is still having the right of redemption

of mortgage as in the present matter the sale was held in the year 2011 and

the provision of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act were amended w.e.f.

01.09.2016 therefore, the unamended Section 13(8) would be applicable to

the present case and the Bank may be directed to accept the auction bid

amount along with interest and expenses and redeem the property.

8 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

5

<>

. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondent/Bank as well

as on behalf of auction purchaser vehemently opposed the petition and

argued that present petitioner is a defaulter and challenged the auction

conducted by the Bank at every stage unsuccessfully. The Bank auctioned

the property and after adjusting the dues amount, the surplus auction money

has been returned to the petitioner through a banker's cheque which was

deposited by the petitioner in the bank account and cleared in the year 2011

itself. Therefore, after such a long period when the sale certificate of sale was

affected in the year 2011, the petitioner has now no right to challenge the

same as the challenge to the sale came to an end when the petitioner had

withdrawn the review petition no.660/2018 on 01.07.2022. They further

submit that by way of the present petition the petitioner is trying to challenge

the auction sale again indirectly. It is further submitted that the challenge of

the petitioner that she had not received the surplus amount and someone else

has received the surplus amount, has also come to an end. The petitioner has

already waived her right of redemption and therefore, in the interest of

justice, equity and good conscience, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

They further submit that the present petition is abuse of process of law and

deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

5.1

<>

Learned counsel for the auction purchaser further submits that

the property has already been auctioned in favour of the auction purchaser

and the auction purchaser has purchased the said property in the year 2010

and paid the complete auction amount at the same time and despite that he

has not been permitted to enjoy the fruits of the property purchased by him.

9 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

He further submits that petitioner has no right to claim the redemption of

mortgage as the petitioner herself has executed the sale deed in favour of one

Smt. Sandhya Verma on 13.01.2011 by which she transferred her all the

alleged rights to Smt. Sandhya Verma.

6.

<>

We considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels for

the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6.1

<>

In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had

obtained loan and credit facilities in the year 2003-2004 and mortgaged the

secured asset which is Plot No.204 admeasuring 2740 Sq ft. situated at 2-A

Phase II of JDA Mauza Badanpur, Shakti Nagar, Ekta Vihar, Saheed Gulab

Singh Ward Tahsil and District Jabalpur in favour of the respondent/Bank on

02.01.2004. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner failed to repay the loan

amount and Bank classified the account as NPA w.e.f. 19.10.2009 and

thereafter issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the

SARFAESI Act followed by the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the

SARFAESI Act on 01.02.2010 and thereafter issued auction notice on

07.02.2010. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner challenged the action

of the Bank before DRT in S.A. No.137/2010 which was dismissed on

13.12.2010. The second auction notice was published in the news paper on

12.11.2010 and auction was conducted on 22.11.2010 which was also

challenged by the petitioner before DRT in S.A.No.95/2011 and which was

also dismissed by the order dated 25.09.2012. The said order was assailed by

the petitioner before DRAT, Allahabad in Appeal No.R-163/2012 which was

dismissed by order dated 13.11.2012.

10 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

6.2

<>

The coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.02.2018

passed in W.P.No.239/2013 decided the issues raised by the petitioner and

upheld the order passed by DRT and DRAT after considering the judgment

relied on by the counsel for the petitioner delivered by Supreme Court in the

matter of Mathew Vargese

<>

(supra)

<>

and recording the findings that the

petitioner had waived her right inasmuch as she has accepted the excess

amount over the loan outstanding. The relevant paragraph of the judgment

reads as under :

"14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the

question required to be examined is: whether the

petitioner ‘has waived her right to dispute the auction in

not depositing the amount after the notice under Section

13 (2) was issued on 06.11.2009 and withdrawing the

excess amount over the outstanding dues against the

petitioner on 22.01.2011? We find that the petitioner

has waived her right inasmuch as she has accepted the

"excess amount over the loan outstanding. Still further,

in terms of Mathew Vargese's case, the purpose of

Rules 8 and9 is to give sufficient time to the borrower to

settle the outstanding loan amount. However, the loan

amount was not settled after the notice under Section 13

(2) was issued on 06.11.2009. The petitioner did not file

any objections under Section 13 (3A) of the Act as

well. The petitioner deposited a cheque in the sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- but the said cheque was dishonored. Not

only. that, the petitioner has not challenged the auction

in a separate proceedings before the Debts Recovery

Tribunal but was satisfied to file an

interlocutory application in a challenge to proceedings

under Section 14 of the Act. Thus, the conduct of the

petitioner is of non-compliance of the provisions of

the statute one after another."

6.3

<>

In S.L.P. No.7644/2018 by order dated 06.04.2018, the Supreme

11 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move the review petition before this

Court and also granted liberty to approach the Supreme Court once again in

the event it becomes so necessary. Thereafter the petitioner availed the

remedy of review petition which was preferred mainly on the ground that the

excess amount was not received by the petitioner and the said amount was

received by fictitious person who has opened the bank account in the name

of the petitioner and the petitioner had not received the said amount.

Thereafter the review petition was withdrawn on 01.07.2022 without any

liberty. Meaning thereby; the challenge to the issue that the petitioner has not

received the excess amount came to an end. During oral arguments, counsel

for the petitioner has fairly accepted before this Court that now the petitioner

is not challenging this issue that petitioner has not received the excess

amount paid to the petitioner by bankers cheque issued by respondent, Bank

and the said amount was duly received by the petitioner.

7.

<>

The sole question involved in the present petition requires to be

answered is "whether the petitioner has any right to seek redemption of the

mortgaged property even after receipt of the excess auction amount?"

7.1

<>

Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act provides a right to the

mortgagor to redeem the mortgage at any time after the principal money has

become due by making payment or tender the same at proper time and place

of the mortgage money, provided that right conferred by this Section has not

been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of the Court. The right to

redeem may be extinguished by an act of the parties or by a decree of the

Court. The mortgagor's right of redemption is to be exercised by the payment

12 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

or tender to the mortgagee at the proper time and at the proper place of the

mortgage money and when it is extinguished by the act of the parties, the act

must take the shape and observe the formalities which the law prescribes.

The expression 'act of parties' refers to some transactions subsequent to the

mortgage and standing apart from mortgage transaction. If a mortgagee

exercises his right to auction the mortgaged property and after receipt of the

auction money and adjusting the total due amount pay the balance surplus

money to the mortgagor and the mortgagor accepts the same, said act of the

parties extinguishes the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage.

7.2

<>

Even in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner delivered by

the Supreme Court in the matter of Narandas (supra),

<>

the Supreme Court has

held that the right of redemption is available to the mortgagor unless it has

been extinguished by the act of the parties. Meaning thereby; right of the

redemption is not absolute and the same can be extinguished by the act of the

parties. The power to auction the property should not be exercised by the

mortgagee until and unless notice is issued in writing requiring the payment

of principal money has been served on the mortgagor. In the case at hand, the

respondent/Bank i.e. mortgagee issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the

SARFAESI Act on 06.11.2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay the due

amount with interest within a period of 60 days and thereafter issued another

notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act on 01.02.2010. In this way, the

petitioner was put to knowledge that in case of failure to make the payment,

the property will be auctioned. The sale has already been held valid by the

DRT and the order passed by the DRT has already been upheld by DRAT

13 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

and by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the excess sale amount have

been paid to the petitioner. Under these circumstances petitioner has

extinguished her right to redeem the mortgage.

7.3

<>

The Apex Court in the matter of Mathew Vargese (supra)

<>

found

no inconsistency between the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI

Act and general right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882 and held that the right of the borrower to redeem the

secured assets was available to sale and transfer of some secured assets until

and unless by the act of the parties, the same has been extinguished. Similar

view was taken by the Apex Court in the matter of Celir LLP (supra)

<>

and it

is held that it is equally well settled that the rights credited for the benefit of

the borrower under the SARFAESI Act can be waived by expressed act of

the parties or by implied conduct of the parties. The relevant paragraphs

read as under:

"64.

<>

We are of the view that the failure on the part of

the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the

charges, interest, costs, etc. before the publication of the

auction-notice as required by Section 13(8) of

the Sarfaesi Act, would also sufficiently constitute

extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage by

the act of parties as per the proviso to Section 60 of the

1882 Act. Furthermore, in the case on hand, there was

no claim for right of redemption by the borrower either

before the publication of the auction-notice or even

thereafter. The borrowers entered into the fray only after

coming to know of the confirmation of auction. Be that

as it may, once Section 13(8) stage was over and

auction stood concluded, it could be said that there was

an intentional relinquishment of his right of redemption

under Section 13(8), whereby the Bank declared the

14 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

appellant as the successful auction-purchaser having

offered the highest bid in accordance with the terms of

the auction-notice.

65.

<>

The Sarfaesi Act is a special law containing an

overriding clause in comparison to any other law in

force. Section 60 of the 1882 Act, is a general law vis-

à-vis the amended Section 13(8) of the Sarfaesi Act

which is special law. The right of redemption is clearly

restricted till the date of publication of the sale notice

under the Sarfaesi Act, whereas the said right continues

under Section 60 of the 1882 Act till the execution of

conveyance of the mortgaged property. The legislative

history has been covered in the preceding paragraphs of

this judgment and how Parliament desired to have

express departure from the general provision of Section

60 of the 1882 Act. The Sarfaesi Act is a special law of

recovery with a paradigm shift that permits expeditious

recovery for the banks and the financial institutions

without intervention of courts. Similarly, Section 13(8)

of the Sarfaesi Act is a departure from the general right

of redemption under the general law i.e. the 1882 Act.

Further, the legislature has in the Objects and Reasons

while passing the amending Act specifically stated “to

facilitate expeditious disposal of recovery applications,

it has been decided to amend the said Acts…”. Thus,

while interpreting Section 13(8) vis-à-vis Section 60 of

the 1882 Act, an interpretation which furthers the said

Objects and Reasons should be preferred and adopted. If

the general law is allowed to govern in the manner as

sought to be argued by the borrowers, it will defeat the

very object and purpose as well as the clear language of

the amended Section 13(8).

66.

<>

In Mathew Varghese [Mathew Varghese v. M.

Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610 : (2014) 3 SCC

(Civ) 254] this Court had interpreted the unamended

Section 13(8) of the Sarfaesi Act and Section 60 of the

1882 Act respectively. However, thereafter the

legislature amended Section 13(8) of the Sarfaesi Act.

Thus, on this score, the decision in Mathew

Varghese [Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar,

(2014) 5 SCC 610 : (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 254] could be

said to have been partially legislatively overruled as the

15 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

substratum of the verdict stands altered/amended.

67.

<>

Even otherwise, we should not lose sight of the fact

that in Mathew Varghese [Mathew Varghese v. M.

Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610 : (2014) 3 SCC

(Civ) 254] the Court held in regard to the right of

redemption that both the Sarfaesi Act and the 1882 Act

are complementary to each other and equally

applicable. It had held this because, the words “before

the date fixed for transfer” in the unamended Section

13(8), amongst other things also means and connotes

the date of conveyance of the secured asset by a

registered instrument (which is the ordinary process of

extinguishment of right of redemption under the 1882

Act). Since, this Court observed that the stipulation or

expression “date fixed for transfer” could also mean the

date of conveyance/transfer of such secured asset and

being so, is not much different from the ordinary

process of redemption under the 1882 Act, it could not

be said that there was any material inconsistency

between the Sarfaesi Act and the 1882 Act, and thus it

found no reason or hesitation to hold that the 1882 Act

is inapplicable and thus made an endeavour of

harmonising the two.

68.

<>

It appears that while considering the right of

redemption of mortgage under the unamended Section

13(8), this Court in Mathew Varghese [Mathew

Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar, (2014) 5 SCC 610 :

(2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 254] only went so far to say that in

the absence of any material inconsistency between

the Sarfaesi Act and the 1882 Act, there was no good

reason to hold that the 1882 Act would not be

applicable and as such, held that general right of

redemption of mortgage contained in Section 60 of the

1882 Act would apply even in respect of

the Sarfaesi Act."

7.4

<>

In the instant case, the coordinate Division Bench in

W.P.No.239/2013 has categorically recorded the findings that borrower has

accepted the surplus amount of sale consideration after adjusting the loan

amount and thus it amounts to waiver. Said judgment was challenged by the

16 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

petitioner before the Supreme Court and liberty was granted by the Supreme

Court to file a review petition on the plea that some fictitious person has

encashed the cheque, which review was filed by the petitioner but the same

was withdrawn without any liberty on 01.07.2022. Now the findings

recorded by the Coordinate Bench in earlier round of litigation in

W.P.No.239/2013 has attained finality and therefore, the petitioner has

extinguished her right of redemption by the act of accepting the surplus

amount and is now precluded from claiming the right of redemption. Even

otherwise petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the Court again and

again on the same set of facts. When the action of the Bank taken under the

provisions of the SARFAESI Act was held appropriate and the auction sale

and issuance of sale certificate have already been upheld, no relief for

redemption of mortgage can be granted.

7.5

<>

In the present matter, by the order passed by the Coordinate

Bench in W.P.No.239/2013, the alleged right of the petitioner for redemption

of mortgage has been closed. If the petitioner is permitted to claim the right

of redemption at this stage, that will amount to review of the order passed in

W.P.No.239/2013 whereas the review has already been withdrawn by the

petitioner on 01.07.2022.

8.

<>

In the above conspectus, we do not find any merit in the petition.

The petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought by her in the instant

petition. The alleged right of redemption of mortgage has already been

extinguished by the act of the parties and the order of the coordinate Bench

passed in W.P.No.239 of the 2013 has attained finality. Petitioner is not

17 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549

(SANJEEV SACHDEVA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(VINAY SARAF)

<>

JUDGE

<>

entitled to claim right of redemption of mortgage after accepting the surplus

of auction money. The question involved in the present matter is answered

accordingly.

8.1

<>

Consequently, the present petition sans merit and is hereby

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

P/-

18 WP-2829-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17549