UNION BANK OF INDIAversusRAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.

                  [2023] 14 S.C.R. 666 : 2023 INSC 869



                             CASE DETAILS

                        UNION BANK OF INDIA
                                      v.
       RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND
              M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.
              (Miscellaneous Application No. 1735 of 2022)
                                      In
                      (Civil Appeal No. 1902 of 2020)
                           OCTOBER 04, 2023
       [ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]

                              HEADNOTES

      Issue for consideration: Applicant-Auction Purchaser sought
directions against the Appellant-Bank for issuance of sale letter in its favour
on the ground that it has made the full and final payment of the auction
amount with interest in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.05.2020.
Whether the extension of time sought by the Applicant in the various
applications was permissible and even if permissible, whether the Applicant
had in fact complied with the orders passed by the Court therein.
      Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r.9 – “Time of sale,
issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession etc.,” w.r.t the sale of
immovable secured assets through e-auction mode – Non-compliance
– By way of instant Miscellaneous Application filed in the disposed of
Civil Appeal, applicant-Auction Purchaser sought directions to the
bank for issuing the sale certificate in its favour – Maintainability –
Applicant inter alia pleaded that the deposits made by it on 22.07.2022
and 26.08.2022 be treated as due compliance of the order dated
12.05.2020, extending the time limit by exercising the inherent powers
of the Supreme Court u/Article 142:
      Held: As per the sub-Rule (4) of r.9, the balance amount of purchase
price payable has to be paid by the purchaser to the authorized officer on
or before the fifteenth day of the confirmation of sale or such extended
                                   666
 UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 667
         ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.


period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and the
secured creditor, in any case not extending three months – Even if by liberal
construction of the said sub rule, and in view of the orders passed by this
Court from time to time in the successive applications filed by the Applicant,
it is presumed that the time to deposit the balance amount with interest had
stood extended two months after February, 2022, i.e., upto 30.04.2022,
no further extension of time as such was granted by the Court nor was it
permissible to extend under the said statutory provision contained in r.9
– Apart from the fact that the Applicant had not complied with the orders
passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications filed by
it, and more particularly the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in M.A. No.922
of 2020, such an application in the disposed of C.A.No.1902 of 2020, to
pursue its strategies and to avoid judicial adjudication in the substantive
proceedings, would not be even maintainable – Court in exercise of powers
u/Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing
with the subject – The plenary powers of the Supreme Court u/Article 142
are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers which are
specifically conferred on the court by various statutes – 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 – Instant Miscellaneous Application
seeking substantive prayers filed in the disposed of C.A. No.1902 of 2020
being not maintainable is dismissed – Constitution of India – Article 142.
[Paras 17-19]
     Practice and Procedure – Filing of repeated applications, styled as
Miscellaneous Applications, without any legal foundation – Deprecated.
[Para 18]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

     Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Another
(1998) 4 SCC 409: [1999] 1 SCR 1121; Supertech Limited vs. Emerald
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others 2021 SCC Online
SC 3422 – relied on.
    Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Another vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh
AIR 1954 SC 322: [1954] SCR 1098; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara
668          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


Singh and Others AIR 1964 SC 358; Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar
Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422: [1999] 1 SCR 1121; –
referred to.
      Taylor vs. Taylor, [L.R.] 1 Ch.426 – referred to.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application
No.1735 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2020 in C.A. No.1902 of
2020 of the Supreme Court of India.
      Appearances:
      O. P. Gaggar, Sachindra Karn, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Dushyant A. Dave, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., Rishi Sehgal, Ms. Arveen
Sekhon, Nikhil Jain, Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu,
Ms. Kritika Sharma, Sugam Kr. Jha, Ms. Osheen Verma, Birendra Kumar
Mishra, Ms. Poonam Atey, Sanath Parashar, Hemerdra Kumar, Sirrajuddin,
J C Gupta, Dhairya BM Verenkar, Chetan Pathak, Ms. Smriti Verma, Aditya
Kr. Choudhary, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Raja Choudhary, Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, Siddhartha Sinha, Tushar Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                              JUDGMENT

      BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
      1. M.A. No.1735 of 2022 is filed in the Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28608 of 2019), by the
Applicant (original Respondent No.6-M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd.) seeking
directions to Union Bank of India (original Appellant) to issue Sale letter
in favour of the Applicant in respect of the property bearing House No.7,
Survey No. Old 168 and 169 (New No.306 & 307) of Village Palasiayana,
Manormagank, Tehsil and District Indore admeasuring 109754 Sq. Ft. (2.18
Acres) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Subject Property’) on the ground that
the Applicant/ Auction Purchaser has made the full and final payment of the
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 669
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


auction amount alongwith interest in terms of the order dated 12.05.2020
passed by this Court in M.A. No.922 of 2020.
      2. The chequered history of the long-drawn litigation between the
parties may be summarized as under: -
     (i)   The appellant in the Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 is a bank,
           a body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies
           (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The
           Respondent No.1-Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. claimed to be the
           owner of the Subject Property, the Respondent No.2-Manindra
           Chandrasen and Respondent No.3-Sharad Chandrasen claimed
           to be in the possession of the subject property, Respondent
           No.4-Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No.5-Zoom
           Vallabh Steel Ltd. were the borrowers. In order to secure the credit
           facilities/ loan granted by the Appellant Bank to the Respondent
           No.4 and 5, the Respondent No.1 on 15.04.2005 had mortgaged
           its interest in the subject property to the Appellant Bank.
     (ii) The Respondent No.4 & 5 having failed to repay the credit
          facilities/ loan granted by the appellant bank, the proceedings
          under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
          Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
          (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’) were initiated by
          the Appellant Bank in respect of the Subject Property mortgaged
          with it.
     (iii) After certain proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal
           (DRT) and Bombay High Court having taken place between
           the parties, the Appellant on 13.06.2019 had issued a notice for
           e-auction sale of the said property under the SARFAESI Act,
           scheduling the auction sale on 04.07.2019.
     (iv) The Respondent no.1-Rajat Infrastructure preferred a
          Securitization Application No. 115 of 2019 on 30.06.2019,
          before the DRT for restraining the Appellant Bank from taking
          any further steps including the sale and confirmation of sale in
          respect of the Subject Property, on the ground that the Bank-
          the secured creditor had failed to make proper valuation of the
670           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


            Subject Property before proceeding with the auction sale as
            contemplated under sub Rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest
            (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short,‘the said Rules’).
      (v)   In the said Securitization Application No. 115 of 2019,
            the Respondent no.1 Rajat Infrastructure had also filed an
            Interlocutory Application No. 822 of 2019 seeking interim relief
            restraining the Appellant Bank from proceeding further with the
            proposed auction sale, pending the main application. The DRT
            Mumbai vide the order dated 11.11.2019 refused to grant the ad
            interim relief as prayed for in I.A. No. 822 of 2019.
      (vi) The Respondent no.1 being aggrieved by the said order passed
           by the DRT, preferred a Writ Petition being (ST No.29319 of
           2019). The Bombay High Court vide the order dated 25.11.2019
           relegated the Respondent no.1 to the statutory remedy of appeal
           before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘DRAT’).
           It was observed in the said order by the High Court that: -
                 “the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal
                 before the learned DRAT, where no pre-deposit is required.”
      (vii) Pending the said Writ Petition before the High Court, the auction
            having taken place, the Respondent no.6 M/s. Sunview Assets
            Pvt. Ltd. (the Applicant herein) claimed to be the highest bidder
            for a sum of Rs.65.62 Crores. The Bombay High Court therefore
            vide the order dated 20.11.2019 permitted the Respondent no.6
            to be impleaded in the said Writ Petition.
      (viii) The Respondent no.6, on the High Court disposing of the Writ
             Petition observing that the Respondent no.1 had an efficacious
             alternative remedy of appeal before the DRAT, where no pre-
             deposit was required, had filed a review petition before the High
             Court. The said review petition came to be dismissed by the High
             Court vide the order dated 16.12.2019.
      (ix) The Appellant Bank, being aggrieved by the observations made
           by the High Court in the order dated 25.11.2019, with regard to
           the pre-deposit, preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.1902
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 671
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


          of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.28608 of 2019), and the
          Respondent no.6 also being aggrieved by the order of the High
          Court passed on 16.12.2019 dismissing its review petition,
          preferred an appeal being the Civil Appeal No.1903 of 2020
          (arising out of SLP (C) No.1753 of 2020) before this Court.
    (x)   This Court by a common judgment and order dated 02.03.2020
          allowed both the said appeals by setting aside the orders dated
          25.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court in so far as
          it was observed therein that pre-deposit was not required. This
          Court to be precise, passed the following order: -
               “11. In view of the above discussion, we set aside both the
               orders dated 25.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 of the High Court
               in so far as they hold that pre-deposit is not required and
               allow the appeals. We reiterate that we have not gone into
               the merits of the contentions raised by the parties which
               shall be decided by the DRAT when it entertains the appeal
               and is called upon to do so. We extend the time given to the
               auction purchasers, respondent no.6 to deposit the balance
               of the sale amount till 20.03.2020. We also direct that in
               case respondent no.1 files an appeal within 30 days of the
               pronouncement of this order it shall not be rejected on the
               ground of limitation.”
          A corrigendum order directing some corrections was passed by
          the court on 04.03.2020.
    (xi) The Applicant–Auction Purchaser preferred M.A. No.894 of
         2020 in the said disposed of Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020
         seeking extension of time for payment of balance sale price
         of Rs.49,21,50,000/- (Rupees Forty-Nine Crores Twenty-One
         Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on the ground that due to Covid-19
         pandemic the Applicant could not raise the required balance
         sale price. The Court vide order dated 20.03.2020 allowed the
         extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration by
         30.04.2020, further observing that: -
               “No further extension shall be granted.”
672        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      (xii) Another M.A. No.922 of 2020 came to be filed by the
            Applicant/ Auction Purchaser seeking further extension of
            time on the ground that there was no improvement in the
            pandemic situation. This Court vide order dated 12.05.2020
            considering the lockdown declared on account of the
            Covid-19, extended the time to deposit the remaining amount
            till two months after lifting of lockdown. In the said order
            the court directed the Applicant to pay interest at the lending
            rate for the period starting from 20.03.2020 till the date of
            deposit.
      (xiii) The Applicant deposited Rs.4,80,00,000/- (Rupees Four
             Crores and Eighty Lakhs) on 30.03.2021, Rs.5,00,00,000/-
             (Rupees Five Crores) on 21.08.2021 and Rs.5,00,00,000/-
             (Rupees Five Crores) on 15.03.2022.
      (xiv) The Applicant again filed M.A. No.1126 of 2022 seeking
            extension of time to deposit the remaining amount of
            Rs.34,41,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Crores Forty-One
            Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).
      (xv) The Respondent No.1 i.e., Rajat Infrastructure therefore
           filed M.A. No.1164 of 2022 seeking recall of the order dated
           12.05.2020 passed by the court in M.A. No.922 of 2020 and
           sought directions against the Appellant Bank to initiate the
           proceedings in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
           The Respondent No.1 in the said application had also sought
           action against the officials of the Respondent-Bank and the
           Applicant M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd. alleging fraud,
           collusion, and conspiracy.
      (xvi) On 11.07.2022, the court passed an interim order in the said
            applications directing to list the matter on 26.07.2022 and
            observed:
              “As at present, we have not passed any order, whether on
              the prayer for enlargement of time, as sought for by the
              respondent no.6 or on the other prayer for not granting
              any other enlargement but, we still leave it open for the
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 673
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


               respondent no.6 to make the requisite payment before the
               next date. We see no more at present.”
    (xvii)   In view of the said order passed by the court on 11.07.2022,
             the Applicant deposited further amount of Rs.34,41,50,000/-
             (Rupees Thirty-Four Crores Forty-One Lakhs Fifty Thousand
             Only) after deducting 1 percent TDS of the total auction
             purchase value with the bank on 22.07.2022.
    (xviii) The Applicant (original Respondent No.6) thereafter filed an
            application being I.A. No.107669 of 2022 praying for waiver
            or reduction of interest amount as earlier directed in the order
            dated 12.05.2020. However, during the course of hearing on
            10.08.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant
            did not press for the said I.A. and submitted that the Applicant
            shall make payment of the requisite amount of interest to the
            bank. He also did not press for the M.A. No.1126 of 2022. The
            learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 – Rajat
            Infrastructure also did not press for the M.A. No.1164 of 2022,
            however, sought liberty to take recourse to other appropriate
            remedies in accordance with law. The court taking note of the
            submissions of the respective parties passed following order
            on 10.08.2022.
               “…………… We have only taken note of the submissions
               of the respective parties in this regard and are not making
               any comments on the merits of the submissions either way.
               Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that with
               disposal of M.A. No. 1126 of 2022, no further orders are
               required on the pending applications in this matter. Hence,
               they stand disposed of as such.
               It goes without saying that other pending matters shall be
               dealt with on their own merits and strictly in accordance
               with law.
               The other applications for intervention, permission for
               filing the application for intervention (I.A. No.100718 of
               2022 and I.A. No.10713 of 2022) as also the application for
674           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


                 direction, being I.A. No.100735 of 2022 are also rendered
                 redundant and stand disposed of as such.”
      (xix)   The Applicant/ Auction Purchaser thereafter deposited with the
              Appellant Bank a sum of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/- (Rupees Seven
              Crores Seventeen Lakhs Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-
              Nine and Forty-Five Paise) towards the interest amount. The
              Appellant Bank vide letter dated 26.08.2022, acknowledged
              the receipt of the said amount.
      3. The Applicant (original respondent no.6 in C.A. No. 1902 of 2020)
has now filed the instant M.A. No.1735 of 2022 seeking the directions as
stated hereinabove. The application has been resisted by the Respondents by
filing their respective replies. The Respondent no.1 Rajat Infrastructure has
mainly contended that the Miscellaneous Application filed in the disposed
of Civil Appeal, seeking directions to the bank for issuing the sale certificate
is not maintainable, more particularly when the Applicant has failed to
comply with the orders passed by this Court from time to time and when the
Applicant has also not complied with the provisions contained in Rule 9 of
the said Rules. The Respondent no.1 has also alleged collusion between the
Applicant and the Appellant Bank. The other Respondents no.2 to 5 have
also broadly supported the contentions raised by the Respondent no.1. The
Appellant Bank has filed the affidavit in reply on 23.11.2022 relying upon
its earlier affidavit filed with regard to the status report dated 06.08.2022
(Annexure A7 of the M.A. paper book). It has been contended inter alia
that even if the lockdown was considered to be in operation till the end of
February 2022, then also the full payment as per the Court’s order dated
12.05.2020 should have been made on or before 30.04.2022, but the same
was not made.
      4. It may be noted that none of the parties has placed on record any
material to show as to on which particular date the lockdown was lifted
in the state of Maharashtra. However, taking note of the orders passed by
this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020, extending period
of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts and Tribunals, including
this Court, on account of the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, it may be
safely presumed that the time limit whenever was to expire in the proceedings
was extended upto February 2022, and that in the instant case, therefore
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 675
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


the Applicant was required to deposit the amount as directed by this Court
in the order dated 12.05.2020, two months after February 2022 i.e., on or
before 30.04.2022.
      5. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels
for the Respondents, with regard to the maintainability of the instant
Miscellaneous Application seeking directions against the Appellant-Bank
for issuance of sale letter in favour of the Applicant, let us first address the
issue whether the extension of time sought by the Applicant in the successive
applications was permissible in the eye of law, and even if permissible,
whether the Applicant had in fact complied with the orders passed by the
Court from time to time in the said applications.
      6. At this juncture, it would also be necessary to refer to Rule 9 of
the said Rules which deals with “Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and
delivery of possession etc.,” with regard to the sale of immovable secured
assets through e-auction mode. Rule 9 of the Rules reads as under: -
     “9. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession,
     etc.-
     [(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance
     shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which
     the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in
     the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served
     to the borrower:
     Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the
     methods specified by sub-rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required
     to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and
     publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for
     any subsequent sale.]
     (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has
     offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer
     to the authorized officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the
     secured creditor:
     Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount
     offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under
     sub-rule (5) of [rule8]:
676           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      Provided further that if the authorized officer fails to obtain a price
      higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower
      and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.
      [(3) On every sale of immovable property, the purchaser shall
      immediately, i.e., on the same day or not later than next working day,
      as the case may be, pay a deposit of twenty five percent of the amount
      of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any,
      to the authorized officer conducting the sale and in default of such
      deposit, the property shall be sold again.]
      (4) The balance amount of purchase price payable shall be paid by
      the purchaser to the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth day
      of confirmation of sale of the immovable property or such extended
      period [as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser and
      the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months].
      (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule
      (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the
      property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all
      claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be
      subsequently sold.
      (6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of
      payment have been complied with, the authorized officer exercising
      the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable
      property in favour of the purchaser in the Form given in Appendix V
      to these rules.
      (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances,
      the authorized officer may, if the thinks fit, allow the purchaser to
      deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances
      and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that
      may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses
      and interest as may be determined by him:
      [Provided that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and
      contingencies there is any surplus available out of the money deposited
      by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid to the purchaser within
      fifteen days from the date of finalization of the sale.]
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 677
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


     (8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the
     authorized officer [shall] issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices
     to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with
     him and take steps to make the payments accordingly.
     (9) The authorized officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser
     free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of
     money as specified in sub-rule (7) above.
     (10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shall specifically
     mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable
     secured asset free from any encumbrances known to the secured
     creditor or not.”
      7. As discernible from the afore-stated sub-rule (4) of Rule 9, the
balance amount of purchase price payable by the purchaser to the authorized
Officer has to be paid on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale
of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon
in writing between the purchaser and the secured creditor, in any case not
exceeding three months. Sub-rule (5) thereof states that in default of payment
within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited
to the secured creditor and the property shall be resold, and that defaulting
purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum
for which it may be subsequently sold. As per sub-rule (6) thereof, on the
confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment
have been complied with, the authorized Officer exercising the power of
sale would issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour
of the purchaser in the form prescribed under the Rules.
      8. Now, it is well settled proposition of law that when a statute requires
a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that
manner or not at all, and other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden.1



1   Taylor vs. Taylor, [L.R.] 1 Ch.426 approved by the Supreme Court in Rao Shiv
    Bahadur Singh and Another vs. The State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322;
    State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others AIR 1964 SC 358 and in
    Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422.
678          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


       9. In the instant case, out of the total bid amount of Rs.65.62 Crores
finalized on the date of auction sale i.e., 11.11.2019, the Applicant had
deposited an amount of Rs.31,20,50,000/- (Rupees Thirty-One Crores
Twenty Lakhs Fifty Thousand) only with the bank and was required to
deposit the balance amount with the authorized officer of the bank on or
before the fifteenth day of the confirmation of sale of the subject property
i.e., on or before 26.11.2019 as per Rule 9(4) of the said Rules. However,
this Court while disposing of the said Civil Appeals Nos. 1902 & 1903
of 2020 vide the order dated 02.03.2020 permitted the Respondent No.6
(Applicant herein) to deposit the balance of sale amount till 20.03.2020.
      10. As per the chronology of events stated hereinabove, the Applicant
did not deposit the balance sale amount on or before 20.03.2020. Thereafter,
the Applicant projecting the cause of Covid-19, sought extension of time for
payment of the balance sale price by filing the M.A. No.894 of 2020. The
court vide the order dated 20.03.2020, extended the date upto 30.04.2020,
clarifying that no further extension shall be granted.
      11. Again, the Applicant filed another M.A. No.922 of 2020 seeking
further extension of time on the ground that there was no improvement in the
Covid-19 pandemic situation, and the court passed an order on 12.05.2020,
extending the time to deposit the remaining amount till two months after
lifting of lockdown. In the said order, the court directed the Applicant to
pay interest at the lending rate for the period starting from 20.03.2020, till
the date of deposit.
     12. However, the Applicant, instead of making the said deposit of
the entire balance amount with interest (which at the relevant time had
accrued to more than fifty crores) deposited Rs. 4,80,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Crores Eighty Lakhs) on 30.03.2021, Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Crores) on 21.08.2021 and another Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores)
on 15.03.2022.
     13. The Applicant thereafter again filed M.A. being No.1126 of
2022 seeking extension of time to deposit the remaining amount. The said
application was strongly resisted by the Appellant Bank and by the other
Respondents and therefore, the court passed the interim order on 26.07.2022
observing that “the court had not passed any order either accepting the
prayer or rejecting the prayer for enlargement of time, however, it was left
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 679
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


open for the applicant – respondent no.6 to make requisite payment before
the next date.”
      14. The Applicant thereafter deposited with the bank a sum of
Rs.33,75,88,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crores Seventy-Five Lakhs Eighty-
Eight Thousand Only) on 22.07.2022 after deducting 1 percent TDS of the
total auction purchase value. The Applicant thereafter deposited with the
bank a sum of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/- (Rupees Seven Crores Seventeen Lakhs
Two Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Nine and Forty-Five paise) towards the
interest amount on 26.08.2022.
       15. From the afore-stated state of affairs, it appears that the extension
of time granted by the court vide the order dated 12.05.2020, which was
self-limiting, had lapsed or expired at least by 30.04.2022 as per the version
of the Appellant Bank. Thereafter, there was no order passed by the court
specifically extending the time limit. Significantly, there is no clarification
made by the Applicant M/s. Sunview Assets Pvt. Ltd., as to how the deposit
of Rs.34,41,50,000/- on 22.07.2022 and the deposit of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/-
on 26.08.2022 made with the Appellant Bank were in due compliance of
the orders passed by the Court from time to time and particularly of the
order dated 12.05.2020. When the Court had passed the order on 12.05.2020
extending the time to deposit the remaining amount till two months after
lifting of the lockdown and to pay interest at the lending rate for the period
starting from 20.03.2020 till the date of the deposit, 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 20.03.2020 till
the deposit was made.
      16. Even if a lenient view is taken considering the orders passed by
this Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 that the period of
limitation had stood extended upto February, 2022 on account of the outbreak
of Covid-19 pandemic, then also the Applicant was required to make deposit
of the entire balance amount with interest within two months thereafter as
per the order passed by this Court on 12.05.2020 in M.A. No.922 of 2020,
which the Applicant had failed to comply.
680            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      17. The submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dushyant
Dave for the Applicant that this Court should treat the deposits made by
the Applicant on 22.07.2022 and on 26.08.2022 as due compliance of the
order dated 12.05.2020, extending the time limit by exercising the inherent
powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
or exercising the powers conferred on the court under Section 148 of the
Civil Procedure Code, cannot be accepted in view of the statutory provision
contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules. As per the sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9, the
balance amount of purchase price payable has to be paid by the purchaser to
the authorized officer on or before the fifteenth 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.
Even if by liberal construction of the said sub rule, and in view of the orders
passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications filed
by the Applicant, it is presumed that the time to deposit the balance amount
with interest had stood extended two months after February, 2022, i.e., upto
30.04.2022, no further extension of time as such was granted by the Court
nor was it permissible to extend under the said statutory provision contained
in Rule 9 of the said rules. It cannot be gainsaid that the court in exercise of
powers under Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision
dealing with the subject. The plenary powers of the Supreme Court under
Article 142 are inherent in nature and are complementary to those powers
which are specifically conferred on the court by various statutes. 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. As observed by this
Court in Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Another2,
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. Even Section 148 of CPC does not permit
the court to extend the time limit beyond thirty days of the time limit fixed
by the court earlier.



2     (1998) 4 SCC 409
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 681
ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]


      18. It is pertinent to note that the instant Miscellaneous Application
has been filed by the Applicant seeking substantive prayer/ direction against
the Appellant Bank for the issuance of the sale certificate on the ground
that the Applicant has made full and final payment of auction amount with
interest in terms of the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in M.A. No.922 of
2020. Apart from the fact that the Applicant had not complied with the
orders passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications
filed by it, and more particularly the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in
M.A. No.922 of 2020, such an application in the disposed of Civil Appeal
No.1902 of 2020, to pursue its strategies and to avoid judicial adjudication
in the substantive proceedings, would not be even maintainable in the eye
of law. Such a trend emerging in this Court of filing repeated applications,
styled as Miscellaneous Applications, without any legal foundation has
been strongly deprecated by this Court in Supertech Limited vs. Emerald
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others3, in which it was
observed as under: -
     “A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications,
     styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment
     has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must
     be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit. Miscellaneous
     Applications are becoming a preferred course to 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 of
     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 [“Quando
     aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum”]”
      19. It is also pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to suggest
as to whether the Respondent No.1 – Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and
Others had preferred any appeal before the DRAT in view of the order
passed in Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 on 02.03.2020, and if preferred
whether the same is pending or not. There is also no clarity about the final


3   2021 SCC Online SC 3422
682            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 14 S.C.R.


outcome of the main Security Application preferred by the Respondent No.1
Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Others before the DRT. Be that as it may,
the instant Miscellaneous Application seeking substantive prayers filed in
the said disposed of Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 being not maintainable
cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. We may however clarify
that it would be open to the applicant to take recourse to any other remedy
that may be permissible under the law for the prayers sought in the present
application, or to file appropriate proceedings seeking refund of the amount
deposited with the appellant-bank, as may be permissible under the law.
     20. In that view of the matter, the Miscellaneous Application No.1735
of 2022 is dismissed.


Headnotes prepared by:                                         M.A. dismissed.
Divya Pandey