A division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M.Trivedi held on Wednesday, October 4, that the powers conferred on the court by Article 142 of the constitution are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes.
The particular provision of the constitution provides a unique power to the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” between the parties, where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy. In those situations, the court can put an end to a dispute in a manner that would fit the facts of the case.
Justice Trivedi clarified, “These powers, though are of a very wide amplitude to do complete justice between the parties, cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or to the cause under consideration of the court.”
Relying on the court’s observation in the Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India case, the Bench held that Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring the express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly.
The case at hand
In the instant case, Union Bank of India vs Rajat Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Others (Respondents) and M/s Sunview Assets Pvt Ltd (Applicant), the appellant bank initiated the proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in respect of the Subject Property mortgaged with it. The bank had issued a notice for an e-auction sale of the said property under the Act, scheduling the auction sale on July 4, 2019.
The applicant claimed to be the highest bidder for a sum of Rs 65.62 crore. The Supreme Court had earlier permitted the applicant to pay a balance sale price of Rs 49, 21, 50,000 by April 30, 2020, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. On May 12, 2020, the court further extended the time to deposit the remaining amount with interest at the lending rate till two months after the lockdown was lifted.
After depositing Rs 14, 80,00,000, the applicant again sought an extension of time to pay the balance amount in 2022. The applicant deposited a further amount of Rs 34,41,50,000 with the bank on July 22, 2022, and later paid the amount due as interest as well.
The Bench noted that it was incumbent on the part of the applicant to state as to when exactly the lockdown was lifted, what was the lending rate of interest at the relevant time, and how much amount the applicant was required to pay towards the balance sale price and towards the interest for the period starting from March 20, 2020 till the deposit was made. The Bench observed that the applicant had failed to comply with the court’s orders, by not making the deposit of the entire balance amount with interest within two months from February 2022, even if a lenient view is taken that the period of limitation had stood extended on account of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Article 142 can’t be invoked: SC
The applicant’s senior counsel, Dushyant Dave, submitted that the court should use its inherent powers under Article 142 of the constitution or Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to treat the partial deposits made within the deadline as due compliance with its order and extend the time limit accordingly.
The Bench, however, rejected the submission saying it is contrary to Rule 9 of the SARFAESI Rules, according to which the balance amount of purchase price payable has to be paid by the purchaser to the authorised officer on or before the 15th day of the confirmation of sale or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not extending three months.
“It cannot be gainsaid that the court in the exercise of powers under Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the subject,” the Bench observed. Even Section 148 of CPC does not permit the court to extend the time limit beyond 30 days of the time limit fixed by the court earlier.
Having held so, the Bench dismissed the applicant’s miscellaneous application seeking direction against the appellant bank for the issuance of the sale certificate on the ground that the applicant had made full and final payment of the auction amount with interest in terms of the order dated May 12, 2020, as not maintainable.
The Bench recalled that the trend emerging in the Supreme Court of filing repeated applications, styled as miscellaneous applications (MAs), without any legal foundation has been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court earlier. The court had held that filing MAs was becoming a preferred course for those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions.
“A judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a miscellaneous application. Filing a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly,” the court had held in Supertech Limited vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others (2021).
The Bench, however, permitted the Applicant to take recourse to any other remedy permissible under the law for the prayers sought in the application, or to file appropriate proceedings seeking refund of the amount deposited with the bank, as may be permissible under the law.
