M/S Jai Maa Industries And Otehrs v. M/S Capri Global Capital Ltd And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 224/2 Date of Decision:- 02.02.2026 M/S JAI MAA INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

M/S CAPRI GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD AND OTHERS

...Respondent(s)

 




 
 
  


SANJIV BERRY

Present:

Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate (arguing counsel) Mr. Gurjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Additional A.G. Haryana. Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.3. * * * * 

 
 
  !"# 1.

The petitioners2borrowers have filed the present petition seeking quashment of the Sale Certificate dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P27) pertaining to the secured asset, which was the residential house of the petitioners, in respect of which respondent No. 3 had submitted the highest ₹ bid of 26,85,000/.

2.

An interim order was passed on 23.01.2023, subject to the ₹ petitioners depositing 35,70,000/2, which the petitioners did within two days thereafter.

3.

The only question relevant in the present case is the correct interpretation of amended Section 13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

-2Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity), which was amended with effect from 01.09.2016. The un2amended and amended sub2section 8 of Section 13 are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:2 $!%&$'&'

 

  



       

   

 

      



 







     

       



      

   



       

 

      





%&$'&'

     

  



            

    

  

       



  





          !"

   

  !       



    



 #   



     

   



    



$

       



    



    





  

    



    

   

#       





 

                  



  

  





4.

The Apex Court, in its recent decision rendered on 22.12.2025 in
  

 
         

 , Civil Appeal No.12174 of 2025 was   faced with the task of answering the question as to what is the import of expression " 

    " as used in amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act.

4.1.

The Apex Court answered the aforementioned question as follows:2

-3-
%&&  '

    



(  %) (*+,*-(*  


       

      

  

  ! 
     



   

   !

   



      





%& '

 
 

( %)

(*+,*-(*    

  

 



!                   

  
       "



 



(*+,*-(+ 

  !

    

   "



  



     
     

            #    "



 

+  .%    





 

   "



!

        

           



    !

!  



                

        

5.

In view of above and applying the abovesaid law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts of the present case, it is evident that since the auction in the present case was held on 16.12.2022, based on an auction notice published in the newspaper on 16.10.2022, the right of redemption of the petitioners2borrowers got extinguished after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of said notice i.e. sometime around 15.11.2022. Thereafter, the auction was conducted on 18.11.2022 and sale certificate in favour of respondent No.3 was issued on 22.12.2022. 6.

In view of the foregoing, and in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioners have failed to satisfy us that they had any right of redemption on the date when this petition was filed. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

7.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ₹ amount of 35,70,000/2 is lying deposited with the Bank.

-48.

The respondent2Bank is directed to return the said amount to the petitioners within a period of 15 days along with admissible interest, in accordance with law.



# 
 
 (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 02.02.2026 S.Sharma i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No