Authority: High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Order Date: 14 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Bimla Dey, wife of Bishwanath Chandra Dey, residing in Jamshedpur.
  • Respondents: Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC) and its officials, State of Jharkhand, Dy. Commissioner Singhbhum East, Sub‑Divisional Officer Jamshedpur, and others.
  • Dispute: BSFC’s demand of Rs 83,14,484 (letter dated 11‑Sep‑2019) and failure to deliver possession of the auctioned property of M/s Hotel Sahu despite the auction sale to the petitioner’s husband.
  • Background: Hotel Sahu defaulted on a loan; property was auctioned on 27‑Aug‑2008. The highest bid of Rs 91 lakhs was made by Bishwanath Chandra Dey. Patna High Court, in CWJC‑2316/2008, rejected the borrower’s challenge and on 26‑Nov‑2015 allowed BSFC to complete the sale.
  • Payment History: The purchaser deposited Rs 22.75 lakhs (25% of sale consideration) on 29‑Aug‑2008. BSFC revalidated the sale on 29‑Aug‑2016, requiring an additional 25% of the balance (Rs 17,06,250) within one month and the balance to be paid in four quarterly instalments of Rs 12,79,700, Rs 12,79,700, Rs 12,79,700 and Rs 12,79,650. The purchaser complied, paying Rs 17,06,250 via Bank Draft Nos. 128023 & 128024 dated 14‑Sep‑2016 and executing the Agreement for Sale‑cum‑Payment of Balance Loan on 28‑Oct‑2016.
  • Possession Failure: Despite compliance, BSFC did not take possession. The Sub‑Divisional Officer ordered the deputation of a Magistrate and armed force on 26‑Dec‑2016. BSFC officers failed to appear on 29‑Dec‑2016 and arrived late on 16‑Feb‑2017, resulting in non‑delivery. SDO Letter No. 1870 dated 15‑May‑2017 recorded deliberate delays and alleged collusion between BSFC officers and the borrower.
  • Area Dispute: 6,278 sq ft were auctioned, but BSFC’s documents reflected a smaller area, leading to further contention.
  • Demand Letter: On 11‑Sep‑2019 BSFC issued a demand for Rs 83,14,484, citing increased property value, which the petitioner contested.

Court Reasoning

  • The Court found BSFC’s unilateral imposition of an additional 25% balance payment without possession to be unfair and unlawful.
  • Observations from the SDO letter and the Court’s own findings indicated that BSFC officers were “hand in gloves” with the borrower, deliberately delaying possession.
  • The Court invoked the legal maxim “nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” and cited Supreme Court precedents: Municipal Committee Katra v. Ashwani Kumar (2024), Eva Agro Feeds (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (2023), and Golden Food Products India v. State of U.P. (2026) to reject arbitrary actions and uphold the auction’s validity.
  • It held that a party that fails to perform its contractual obligations cannot penalise the other party that has fulfilled its obligations.

Final Outcome

  • The demand letter dated 11‑Sep‑2019 for Rs 83,14,484 is quashed.
  • BSFC is directed to hand over possession of the Hotel Sahu property to the petitioner within three weeks from 14‑Oct‑2026.
  • Both parties must adhere to the Agreement for Sale‑cum‑Payment of Balance Loan dated 28‑Oct‑2016; any timelines in that agreement are to be calculated from the order date.
  • Tenants occupying the property from now on shall pay rent to the petitioner, who will act as landlord.
  • The writ petition is allowed, and any pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

Topics: Court Order, Auction Dispute, Possession Delivery