Srs Advertising And Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Kamal Garg

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)

JUDGMENT

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

2. That Respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner Natarajan Date: 2022.02.16 15:47:35 IST Reason:

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