In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a borrower to settle its long-pending loan dues and retain its mortgaged property in Gurgaon, quashing an auction sale conducted by Indian Bank on the ground that the sale had never attained finality.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court (File photo).In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently allowed a borrower to settle its long-pending loan dues and retain its mortgaged property in Gurgaon, quashing an auction sale conducted by Indian Bank on the ground that the sale had never attained finality. A division bench of Justices Suvir Sehgal and Deepak Manchanda, while disposing of two connected writ petitions on April 24, held that the highest bidder in the auction did not acquire any legal right over the property as the sale remained subject to confirmation by the bank and the outcome of pending court proceedings.The order clears the way for RKB Healthcare Private Limited and Sudhir Bajaj to retain the property after paying a fresh one-time settlement amount sanctioned by the bank. The case dates back to 2011, when RKB Healthcare took a Rs 12 crore loan from Allahabad Bank, now merged with Indian Bank, for setting up a healthcare and wellness centre in Gurgaon. The loan was secured against the company’s properties as well as additional land owned by Sudhir Bajaj in the village of Shikohpur. After the account turned non-performing in 2016, the bank initiated recovery proceedings, took physical possession of the land in January 2022 and put it up for auction. On March 15, 2022, Value One Retail Private Limited emerged as the highest bidder with an offer of Rs 15.98 crore and deposited 25 per cent of the bid amount, approximately Rs 4 crore. However, the auction was conducted while litigation initiated by the borrowers was pending before the High Court. Subsequently, in December 2024, the bank sanctioned a fresh one-time settlement of Rs 12.84 crore, which the borrowers paid in full. Value One Retail challenged the settlement, contending that the property ought to have been transferred to it as the highest bidder.Story continues below this ad Rejecting the plea, the Bench noted that the bank’s acceptance letter expressly made the sale conditional. “Auction purchaser was issued a letter of acceptance on same day wherein bank clearly stated that sale has been conducted subject to confirmation by bank and subject to outcome of proceedings before the High Court… Though, auction purchaser did deposit 25 per cent of bid amount, but he did so at his own risk. The issuance of acceptance letter or deposit of 25 per cent of bid amount will not vest any right in auction purchaser,” the court said. Emphasising the legal position, the bench held, “As long as the sale is not confirmed in favour of auction purchaser, he does not acquire any right or interest in auctioned property. There is nothing to stop the bank from entering into an OTS with borrower as long as auction sale is not concluded by issuance of a sale certificate.” The court also found no evidence of collusion between the borrower and the bank “to defeat the claim of intending purchaser”.Story continues below this ad Quashing the sale notice dated February 3, 2022, and the acceptance letter issued to Value One Retail, the High Court directed Indian Bank to refund Rs 3,99,50,000 deposited by the auction purchaser “along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of deposit, within a period of one month from today”. The bank has also been directed to restore physical possession of the mortgaged property to the borrower upon redemption. Manraj Grewal Sharma is a senior journalist and the Resident Editor of The Indian Express in Chandigarh, where she leads the newspaper’s coverage of north India’s most politically and institutionally significant regions. From Punjab and Haryana to Himachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, she oversees reporting at the intersection of governance, law, politics and society. She also reports on the diaspora, especially in Canada and the US. With a career spanning journalism across several countries, academia and international development, Manraj
The Punjab and Haryana High Court questioned the petitioner’s credentials after the Government pointed to past criminal cases and the suspension of his Bar licence. (File Photo)The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday deferred considering a PIL challenging Punjab’s amended anti-sacrilege law, saying it would first examine whether the plea was maintainable in view of allegations that the petitioner had suppressed facts about his antecedents. A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry was hearing a plea filed by Simranjeet Singh, 43, a Jalandhar resident, against the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act 2026, which recently received the governor’s assent.At the outset, the bench questioned the petitioner’s credentials after the Punjab Government pointed to past criminal cases registered against him and the suspension of his licence to practise law. “This Court will have to seriously undertake the exercise as to whether the petition can be entertained or not or dismissed in limine,” the bench observed, noting what it described as an apparent suppression of material facts. Three FIRs and suspended Bar licence Appearing for Punjab, Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi submitted that Singh’s Bar licence remained under suspension amid scrutiny over the genuineness of his academic degree. He also said the state Bar council had withdrawn the enrolment previously issued to him. “These are the antecedents and credentials of the petitioner,” Bedi informed the court, while also submitting that Singh had been declared a habitual complainant by the Vigilance Bureau and seeking dismissal of his petition with costs. The bench also questioned why the petitioner had not disclosed details of three FIRs registered against him in the past. “When were they quashed, in which proceeding? Nothing has been disclosed,” the court remarked.Story continues below this ad The petitioner’s counsel said the matter raised issues of public importance and offered to place the relevant facts in an affidavit. He also submitted that no FIR was pending against Singh and that his academic degree had not been declared invalid. The court, however, said it could not proceed to examine the constitutional challenge to the law without first scrutinising the petitioner’s antecedents. It adjourned the matter to next week and directed the state to furnish the material relied upon to the petitioner so that he could respond. The amended law, passed by the Punjab Assembly and notified after receiving the governor’s assent, strengthens penalties for sacrilege involving saroops of the Guru Granth Sahib. It prescribes imprisonment ranging from seven to 20 years and fines between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 10 lakh. In cases where sacrilege is committed with the intent to disturb peace or communal harmony, the law provides for punishment extending to life imprisonment, along with a higher fine. In his petition, Singh has challenged the law on constitutional grounds, arguing that since it creates criminal offences in a field covered by central legislation, including provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, it required presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution rather than only the governor’s approval.Story continues below this ad The plea also contends that the law violates Article 14 (equality before the law) by confining its protection to one religious scripture while excluding those of other faiths and that its definition of sacrilege is vague. This is not the first time Singh’s credentials have come under judicial scrutiny. The high court dismissed an earlier PIL with costs after observing that he had not approached the court with clean hands and failed to disclose that the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had suspended his licence to practise law.
Discussion (0)