Case Law Details
Anita Tosniwal Vs Reserve Bank of India (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Anita Tosniwal vs Reserve Bank of India, the Calcutta High Court has delivered a judgment quashing the demand for interest and refund of stamp duty and registration fee. The court found that there was no proper enquiry conducted about the property before the auction, leading to disputes over ownership rights. This article provides an analysis of the judgment, including the arguments presented by the parties involved and the court’s decision.
Analysis: The case revolves around Anita Tosniwal, who participated in an auction conducted by the Central Bank of India for a flat in Kolkata. After emerging as the highest bidder and receiving the sale certificate, she discovered encumbrances on the property and lodged a complaint. The dispute arose between the Central Bank of India and the State Bank of India, both claiming rights over the same property. The court examined the sequence of events, including the issuance of notices under the SARFAESI Act by both banks and the subsequent sale of the property to Anita Tosniwal.
The court considered the obligations of the banks to conduct proper enquiries and disclose encumbrances before conducting the auction. It highlighted that the bank cannot shirk its responsibility, especially when acting as a nationalized bank. The court also took into account the possession of the property taken over by the competent authority in a bank fraud case. Ultimately, the court ruled that while the sale certificate and deed of conveyance did not confer title over the property to Anita Tosniwal, she was entitled to a refund of the consideration money.
Conclusion: The judgment in the case of Anita Tosniwal vs Reserve Bank of India by the Calcutta High Court highlights the importance of proper property enquiry before participating in an auction. The court found that the banks involved had not fulfilled their obligations to disclose encumbrances, leading to a dispute over ownership rights. While the court denied the appellant’s claim for interest and refund of stamp duty and registration fee, it ordered the refund of the consideration money. This judgment serves as a reminder for banks to exercise diligence and transparency in conducting property auctions to avoid legal complications and protect the interests of buyers.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
