UNION BANK OF INDIA vs ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE on 13 September 2019

1. In the present matter, one MA bearing no. 174/2019 has been filed on behalf of applicant / Auction Purchaser Sh. Harish Nagpal praying therein to direct the respondent no. 1 bank, to carry out the registration of the sale certificate dated 29.03.2012 of any other legal documents in respect of the property bearing no. A-87, Ground Floor, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi – 110 028, in favour of applicant herein with the appropriate authority / concerned sub Registrar in view of the detailed submissions made above or in the alternative to direct the respondent no. 1 bank to refund the amount of Rs. 3,11,00,300/- i.e. Rs. 2,61,00,300/- in respect of the bid amount deposited by the applicant plus the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- spent by the applicant on account of expenses and expenditure incurred for the upkeep and proper maintenance of the subject property, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the AB

due date till the date of its realization in view of detailed submissions made above. Apparently, the present SA bearing no. 263/2011 was filed between UBI and OBC and the present applicant / Auction Purchaser was not a party in the said SA. The SA no. 263/2011 was filed somewhere in the year 2011. In the said SA, the present Auction Purchaser was not a party and the said SA was between the banks i.e. UBI and OBC and accordingly, Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, in the said SA passed an order dated 27.03.2012, whereby OBC was directed to issue a Sale Certificate in favour of Auction Purchaser, in accordance with law. Now, it is the grievance of the Auction Purchaser that the Sale Certificate has not been got registered so far but he had already deposited the entire bid amount way back in the year 2012. Once, applicant herein i.e. Auction Purchaser was not a party in the SA No. 263/2011, therefore, present MA is not maintainable in the present matter and the remedy of the applicant herein lies somewhere else and not by way of filing present MA. In the present matter, the applicant herein has also sought refund of Rs. 3,11,00,300/-

which includes Rs. 2,61,00,300/- in respect of bid amount and a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- has also been claimed as damages, therefore, such relief cannot at al be granted by way of this application by this Tribunal, that too when SA has already been disposed off on 27.03.2012 and, when the applicant herein is not a AB

party therein. Futher, in the present matter, written arguments have also been filed on behalf of applicant / Auction Purchaser wherein it is stated that this Tribunal is guided by principles of natural justice under Section 22 of the RDDB&FI Act and Rule 18 of the DRT Procedure Rules, 1993; and order and directions in certain cases can be given by this Tribunal as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. However, in the present matter, it is already said that the applicant herein was not a party in the SA No. 263/2011 which has already been disposed off on 27.03.2012. In the said SA, dispute was between the banks and the applicant herein was not a party therein. Had it been so, then certainly the applicant could have moved to seek certain relief but that too not after delay of such a long time of seven years. Further, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised by this Tribunal, as same are in addition and complementary to the powers given to this Tribunal and the Tribunal cannot allow the said relief that merely by entertaining the application in the disposed SA, that too, when the applicant herein was not a party in the said SA. Apart that, inherent powers can only be exercised in only exception circumstances and exceptional cases and not in such manner merely by entering an application from a third party, that too, in the disposed matter, that too when other efficacious remedies were available with AB

the applicant which were never availed by the applicant immediately after issuance of the sale certificate dated 29.03.2012. In sequel of above discussions, the present MA stands dismissed, being not maintainable.

File be consigned to records.

(DHARMINDER SINGH) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

AB