# Anil Kumar Jaiswal v. U.O.I. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1502
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13012 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-jaiswal-v-u-o-i-anr-53512
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-SARFAESI
ACT-Rule
9(5)-
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002-The petitioner filed a writ seeking a
refund of Rs 17.49 lakhs, which was 25%
of the bid amount deposited by him an eauction conducted by the respondent
Bank on 29.12.2023-This amount was
forfeited by the Bank when he failed to
pay
the
remaining
75%
within
the
stipulated time, as per Rules 9(5) of the
Rule 9(5) of the Rules,2002-the petitioner
argued that the forfeiture was unjust
since
the
Bank
later
withdrew
the
SARFAESI proceedings and re-initiated
them, which he claimed invalidated the
original forfeiture and demanded refund
on equitable grounds-The court held that
forfeiture under Rule 9(5) is a statutory
consequence not subject to equitable
considerations-The petitioner failed to
demonstrate
any
exceptional
or
extraneous circumstances that justified
his failure to deposit the remaining
amount-The withdrawal and re-initiation
of SARFAESI proceedings by the Bank did
not invalidate the prior forfeiture.(Para 1
to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs
Shanmugavelu (2024) 6 SCC 641

## Text

1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a
particular
matter
to
the
District
Magistrate for passing an order therein.

10. Under the present circumstances, it
is seen that a representation has been filed
by the petitioner in the month of March
2025 and he is objecting to the laying down
of transmission lines over his property. In
effect, one may say that there is a kind of
resistance being offered by the petitioner.
This particular situation has to be left to the
wisdom of the Telegraph Authority being
the respondent No.1 herein.

11. We grant liberty to the Telegraph
Authority to act in accordance with law
including their right to refer the matter to
the District Magistrate under Section 16(1)
of the Act for dealing with the said
obstruction/resistance/ representation made
by the petitioner.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1502
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 13012 of 2025

Anil Kumar Jaiswal ....Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vipul Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anil Kumar Bajpai, Ashish Agarwal
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-SARFAESI
ACT-Rule
9(5)-
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002-The petitioner filed a writ seeking a
refund of Rs 17.49 lakhs, which was 25%
of the bid amount deposited by him an eauction conducted by the respondent
Bank on 29.12.2023-This amount was
forfeited by the Bank when he failed to
pay
the
remaining
75%
within
the
stipulated time, as per Rules 9(5) of the
Rule 9(5) of the Rules,2002-the petitioner
argued that the forfeiture was unjust
since
the
Bank
later
withdrew
the
SARFAESI proceedings and re-initiated
them, which he claimed invalidated the
original forfeiture and demanded refund
on equitable grounds-The court held that
forfeiture under Rule 9(5) is a statutory
consequence not subject to equitable
considerations-The petitioner failed to
demonstrate
any
exceptional
or
extraneous circumstances that justified
his failure to deposit the remaining
amount-The withdrawal and re-initiation
of SARFAESI proceedings by the Bank did
not invalidate the prior forfeiture.(Para 1
to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs
Shanmugavelu (2024) 6 SCC 641

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel appearing along with learned
counsel, Sri Vipul Pandey, in support of
this petition and Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Bank.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, wherein
the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction
5 All. Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.
1503
on the part of the respondent authority(ies),
in refunding the 25% of amount i.e. to the
tune of Rs.17.49 Lacs, deposited by the
petitioner pursuant to the e-auction dated
29.12.2023, stated to be forfeited by the
respondent-Bank in exercise of Rule 9(5)
of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
"2002 Rules").

3. The case of the petitioner is that
after the petitioner failed to deposit the
balance 75% within the time prescribed, the
earnest money was forfeited. However, the
petitioner
submits
that
the
bank
subsequently itself withdrew the entire
previous SARFAESI action against the
mortgaged property by a letter dated
November 18, 2024, with liberty to take a
fresh SARFAESI action, which was once
again taken on November 18, 2024.

4. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel who is appearing along with Sri
Vipul Pandey, for the petitioner, submits
that the present case is peculiar in its nature
as there are exceptional circumstances
wherein the forfeited amount should be
returned/refunded to the petitioner on
grounds of the law of equity. He submits
that since the entire SARFAESI action
taken by the bank was ipso facto withdrawn
by it, on a later date, the forfeiture of the
amount deposited by the petitioner would
be contrary to the principles of law and
would amount to unjust enrichment. Sri
Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel, draws the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 108 to
118 of the Supreme Court judgment in the
case of Authorised Officer, Central Bank
of India Vs. Shanmugavelu reported in
(2024) 6 SCC 641, to buttress his
arguments that in certain exceptional
circumstances the forfeited amount may be
refunded.
5. Per contra, the counsel appearing
on behalf of the bank submits that the
aforesaid
judgment
in
Shanmugavelu
(supra) specifically states that the concept
of unjust enrichment would not apply in
case of forfeiture of amount under Rule
9(5) of the 2002 Rules. He submits that in
fact the exceptional circumstances that
have been discussed in paragraphs 115 to
118, would only relate to extraneous
conditions that may have existed which had
prevented the successful bidder from
depositing the balance of the amount. Any
steps taken by the bank subsequent to the
failure of the auction-purchaser would have
no relevance whatsoever with regard to the
said forfeiture.

6. Upon perusal of the records and
after hearing the counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties, we may rely on
paragraph
112
of
the
judgment
in
Shanmugavelu (supra), which is delineated
below:

 "112.
The
consequence
of
forfeiture of 25% of the deposit under Rule
9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules is a legal
consequence that has been statutorily
provided in the event of default in payment
of the balance amount. The consequence
envisaged
under
Rule
9(5)
follows
irrespective of whether a subsequent sale
takes place at a higher price or not, and this
forfeiture is not subject to any recovery
already made or to the extent of the debt
owed. In such cases, no extent of equity
can either substitute or dilute the statutory
consequence of forfeiture of 25% of
deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI
Rules."

7. J.B. Pardiwala, J. in his
inimitable style has examined a catena of
judgments to understand the interplay
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between law and equity. Paragraph 113 of
the judgment is apposite to be quoted
below:

 "113. This Court in National Spot
Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd.
(Resolution Professional), (2022) 11 SCC
761 after referring to a catena of its other
judgments, had held that where the law is
clear the consequence thereof must follow.
The High Court has no option but to
implement
the
law.
The
relevant
observations
made
in
it
are
being
reproduced below: (SCC pp. 774-75, para
15)

 "15. ... 15.1. In BSNL v. Mishri
Lal, (2011) 14 SCC 739, it is observed that
the law prevails over equity if there is a
conflict. It is observed further that equity
can only supplement the law and not
supplant it.

 15.2. In Raghunath Rai Bareja v.
Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230,
in paras 30 to 37, this Court observed and
held as under: (SCC pp. 242-43)

 '30.
Thus,
in
Madamanchi
Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, 1963
SCC OnLine SC 36 : (2007) 2 SCC 230
(vide AIR para 12) this Court observed :
(AIR p. 1637)

 "12. ... [W]hat is administered in
courts is justice according to law, and
considerations of fair play and equity
however important they may be, must yield
to clear and express provisions of the law."

 31. In Council for Indian School
Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal,
(2000) 7 SCC 521 (vide para 4) this Court
observed : (SCC p. 522)

 "4. ... Considerations of equity
cannot prevail and do not permit a High
Court to pass an order contrary to the law."

 32. Similarly, in P.M. Latha v.
State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 (vide
para 13) this Court observed: (SCC p. 546)

 "13. Equity and law are twin
brothers and law should be applied and
interpreted equitably but equity cannot
override written or settled law."

 33. In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad
v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 5 SCC 413
(vide para 73) this Court observed: (SCC p.
436)

 "73. It is now well settled that
when there is a conflict between law and
equity the former shall prevail."

 34. Similarly, in Nasiruddin v.
Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577
(vide para 35) this Court observed: (SCC
p. 588)

 "35. In a case where the statutory
provision is plain and unambiguous, the
court shall not interpret the same in a
different manner, only because of harsh
consequences arising therefrom."

 35. Similarly, in E. Palanisamy v.
Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123 (vide para 5
this Court observed: (SCC p. 127)

 Equitable considerations have no
place where the statute contained express
provisions.

 36. In India House v. Kishan N.
Lalwani, (2003) 9 SCC 393 (vide para 7)
this Court held that: (SCC p. 398)
5 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1505
 "7. ... The period of limitation
statutorily prescribed has to be strictly
adhered to and cannot be relaxed or
departed
from
for
equitable
considerations." '..."

 (emphasis in original and
supplied)"

8. Furthermore, the Supreme Court,
in paragraph 118 of the judgment in
Shanmugavelu (supra), after discussing the
various Supreme Court judgments, held as
follows:

 "118. Thus, this Court held that
where extraneous conditions exist that
might have led to the inability of the
successful auction-purchaser despite best
efforts from depositing the balance amount
to no fault of its own, in such cases the
earnest money deposited by such innocent
successful
auction-purchaser
could
certainly be asked to be refunded."

9. Upon perusal of the above
paragraphs of the judgment, it is crystal
clear that the present case wherein the
petitioner is seeking refund of the forfeited
amount on the ground of re-initiation of the
SARFAESI action by the bank upon the
borrower, would not come within the
contours of an 'exceptional circumstance',
leading
to
dilution of
the
statutory
consequence of forfeiture under Rule 9(5)
of the 2002 Rules. As is clear from the
factual matrix, the petitioner has not
indicated any extenuating circumstances
that resulted in failure on the part of the
petitioner to deposit the balance amount
within the prescribed time. Accordingly,
there is no question of any equity in his
favour. The subsequent actions of the Bank
in re-initiating the SARFAESI action
cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner
in any manner whatsoever, as forfeiture is a
statutory consequence under the 2002
Rules.

10. In light of the same, in spite of
the eloquence and incisive points raised by
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, counsel appearing for
the petitioner, we are of the view that these
arguments are only in the nature of
sophistry, and hence, have to be out rightly
rejected by this Court.

11. Ergo, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Writ C No. 14892 of 2025

Kamlesh Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shreyas Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Registration of
Documents - Challenging Official Act of
Sub-Registrar - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 34 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -
Section 22 - Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4
- Rules/Regulations - Rule 285 in UP
Registration Manual - Duty of Registering
Officer - Jurisdiction of High Court under
Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction not to be
exercised to usurp that of the civil Court -
Petitioner must find his remedy in the civil
court - For a party to challenge the official