Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: Registration Act; Auction sale
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
appellant on 27.12.2010. Respondent No.1 is the Bank to whom Champa Bhen Kundia is indebted as a borrower; respondent No.2 is said to be
pursuant to an Agreement to sell and a General Power of Attorney; respondent Nos.3 to 8 have really no connection with the present dispute in question.
(measuring 55.7 Sq. yards) and the building and the Basement of House property bearing no. 2/22, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi110018 (hereinafter referred to as “secured asset”). One Champa Bhen Kundia was the owner of the said secured asset. The basement of the secured asset was sold in favour of her son Chandu Bhai vide an
unregistered document to show the sale of the basement of the secured assets in favour of Satnam Singh and Surinder Wadhwa vide an
consideration of Rs.90,000/-. Further, once again, Satnam Singh and Surinder Wadhwa created unregistered document, i.e., Agreement to Sell dated 23.04.2001 for the sale of the basement of the secured assets in favour of Raj Kumar Vij, i.e., respondent No. 2. 5.
the secured asset took a loan from M/s Associated India Financial Service Pvt Ltd and mortgaged the secured asset on 16.06.2001. Said financing Company M/s Associated India Financial Service P Ltd, was taken
13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) to Champa Bhen Kundia as the loan was not repaid. The notice remained non-complied, therefore, respondent No. 1 got the secured asset attached and took the physical possession of the secured asset by appointment of a Court Receiver under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act under the orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide order dated 06.09.2007. 7.
Appellant / assessee submissions
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
respondent No.2 has no locus standi to interfere in the matter and therefore, the appeal may be allowed by restoring the order dated 03.09.2014 and setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and setting aside the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the DRT.
subsequently on 16.06.2001, respondent No.2 had an equitable right to get the title to the scheduled property; therefore respondent No.2
30.08.2012 which order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 03.09.2014. Therefore, respondent No.2 was constrained to file W.P. (C)
the said writ petition in favour of respondent No.2 herein. Learned counsel, therefore submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and hence, the same may be dismissed. 21.
Therefore, the Bank although had done its due diligence would not have known the fact that there was a prior transaction in respect of the very same secured asset. 22.
that there was a registration of the General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.2 and thereafter there was an agreement to sell also executed in his favour which created an interest in the secured asset and therefore, the said fact having been brought to the notice of respondent No.1, the objection raised by respondent No.2 ought to have been taken note of by the Bank. Respondent No.1 having ignored the objection raised by respondent No.2 vis-a-vis the proposed auction of the secured asset has in fact let down not only
Operative decision and relief
same shall be considered expeditiously and disposed of. 36.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file) 17
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- This Court in Babasheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde
- V.S. Palanivel vs. P. Sriram reported in 2024 INSC 659 held that
- Celir LLP vs. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others Contempt Petition
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Property / Banking. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
- Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Supreme Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—the disputed issue—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with Registration Act, Auction sale. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
Before citing the case, verify the latest appellate status and whether the decision is final, distinguished, stayed, reversed or confined to its facts. The packaged PDF and source trail should be read together with the current statutory text.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. |
| Source integrity | Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: Registration Act, Auction sale.
- Your matter is at a comparable the same procedural and factual stage stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Supreme Court considered: appellant on 27.12.2010.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Sanjay Sharma?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
appellant on 27.12.2010. Respondent No.1 is the Bank to whom Champa Bhen Kundia is indebted as a borrower; respondent No.2 is said to be pursuant to an Agreement to sell and a General Power of Attorney; respondent Nos.3 to 8 have really no connection with the present dispute in question. (measuring 55.7 Sq. yards) and the building and the Basement of House property bearing no. 2/22, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi110018 (hereinafter referred to as “secured asset”).
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?
same shall be considered expeditiously and disposed of. 36. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages Registration Act, Auction sale. The relevant statutory version for Not applicable should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Property / Banking . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. Authenticated official-primary judgment copy is packaged.
Section / provision impact
- Registration Act — Registration Act is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- Auction sale — Auction sale is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under Registration Act, Auction sale and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Nationally binding, subject to a larger Bench, statutory amendment or later Supreme Court development. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Authorities appearing in this judgment: This Court in Babasheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde; V.S. Palanivel vs. P. Sriram reported in 2024 INSC 659 held that; Celir LLP vs. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others Contempt Petition
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF
| Packaged source class | OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_DIGITALLY_SIGNED_AUTHENTICATED |
|---|---|
| Pages | 17 |
| SHA-256 | 9240b15e3078543fa56a30aceb67c925ce9a0bd9a465bc408f343ac2ae825c8c |
| Original source URL | Official primary packaged locally; public page does not rely on third-party source links. |
| Source authentication | Official primary - valid embedded issuing-authority digital signature |