In Brief
A bank conducted an e-auction of mortgaged property after the borrowers defaulted on loans. The borrowers challenged the sale claiming: (1) the property description had a typographical error in the door number (12-3-393 instead of 12-3-39), and (2) the auction purchaser deposited the balance bid amount four days late. The High Court set aside the auction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the minor typographical error caused no prejudice when the property was otherwise fully described; the 15-day payment deadline in the auction rules is not absolute and can be extended by written agreement, especially when the bank itself requested the delay; and the borrowers improperly approached the High Court without first exhausting their statutory right of appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.