Full Judgment Text
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.13021303 OF 2022
SRS Advertising & Marketing
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Appellant(s)
Versus
Mr. Kamal Garg & Anr. ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned
judgment and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the High
Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12530 of 2021 and
in Review Petition No.197 of 2021, the original Respondent
No.2 has preferred the present appeals.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.02.16
15:47:35 IST
Reason:
2. That Respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner
was the auction purchaser, who purchased the properties
1
which were auctioned in pursuance of Recovery Certificate
No.6/2016 which was in favour of the Corporation Bank
(now merged with the Union Bank of India) for a sum of
Rs.85 lakhs. The reserved price of the properties was fixed
at Rs.54 lakhs. Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner
made the highest bid of Rs.85 lakhs. After making the said
bid and after making the earnest money deposit to the tune
of Rs.21,25,000/ (being 25% of the bid price) Respondent
no.1 – the original writ petitioner moved an application
before the Recovery Officer seeking some clarity in the
matter. The same was replied to by the Bank. However,
thereafter the Recovery Officer dismissed the application of
the petitioner on 28.11.2019 and forfeited 10% of the
amount deposited by him.
2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer,
Respondent No.1 herein had preferred an appeal being
Appeal No.21 of 2019 before DRTII, Delhi on 19.12.2019.
The said appeal came to be dismissed by the DRTII vide
order dated 18.03.2020. Thereafter Respondent No.1 herein
original writ petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.91
2
of 2019 before the DRAT challenging the order of DRT dated
18.03.2020. The DRAT, however did not grant any interim
relief to him and consequently Respondent Bank herein
sought to put the property to auction on 10.11.2021. The
application to seek interim relief from the DRAT was
renotified on 17.11.2021 i.e. after the date of the proposed
auction and therefore apprehending that his interim relief
application would become infructuous, Respondent No.1
herein preferred the present writ petition before the High
Court. Though the appeal before the DRAT was pending
and what was challenged before the High Court was with
regard to not granting any interim relief against the auction,
by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
disposed of the writ petition by granting one further
opportunity to the original writ petitioner to deposit the
balance amount along with the damages quantified at Rs.5
lakhs. The High Court has passed the following order:
“13. In the aforesaid circumstances, we grant
one opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the
balance amount along with damages quantified
at Rs.5 Lakhs, within the next two weeks. The
deposit shall be made with the respondent bank
within the aforesaid period. In case, the deposit
is made in these terms, the respondent bank
3
shall proceed to deliver the possession of the
properties to the petitioner. The Recovery Officer
is directed to release the 25% of the amount
deposited by the petitioner with him, along with
up to date interest, within the next 10 days to
the respondent Bank, and to confirm the sale.
The Recovery Officer shall take all steps under
the law to perfect the title of the petitioner.”
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, original
respondent No.2 – original borrower has preferred the
present Civil Appeal Nos. 13021303 of 2022.
2.3 After the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 passed
in Writ Petition (C) No.12530 of 2021, a review petition was
filed which has been dismissed by the High Court which is
the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.13021303 of 2022.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the impugned judgment and order.
3.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that
the same passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
3.2 The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact
that what was challenged before it was regarding nongrant
4
of any interim relief pending the appeal before the DRAT.
Main appeal was yet to be considered by the DRAT on
merits. From the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, it appears that the High Court has decided
and disposed of the writ petition as if the High Court was
considering the final decision of the DRAT. The order
passed by the DRT confirming the order passed by the
Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited by the
auction purchaser was yet to be decided by the DRAT.
Therefore, the High Court as such has gone beyond the
scope and ambit of the proceedings before it.
3.3 By passing the impugned judgment and order the High
Court has as such made the proceedings before the DRAT
infructuous, as after the impugned judgment and order
nothing further is required to be decided by the DRAT.
Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction by
passing the impugned judgment and order.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is/are hereby quashed and
5
set aside. Now, the DRAT to finally decide and dispose of
the Appeal No.91 of 2019 in accordance with law and on its
own merits. DRAT is directed to finally decide and dispose
of the said appeal at the earliest, preferably within a period
of four months from the date of the receipt of the present
order.
Present appeals are accordingly Allowed to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
February 16, 2022
6