VEDANTA LANDSCAPE LLP vs AXIS BANK LTD AND OTHERS on 10 November 2025

1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Misc. Application for a direction to Respondent No.1 Bank to release the sale consideration of Rs.1,17,00,000/- with interest thereon @18% p.a. from 26.09.2013 till realization along with poundage fee, along with legal cost of Rs.14,10,000/- to the Applicant and for incidental reliefs.

2. 2. The facts of the present case, as pleaded by the Applicant, are that the Applicant purchased an immovable property (more particularly described in Para 5 of the present MA) for an amount of Rs.1,17,00,000/- in auction conducted by Respondent No.1 Bank on 26.08.2013. Upon payment of entire sale consideration, Respondent No.1 has issued Sale Certificate dated 03.10.2013 in favour of the Applicant. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 to 12 preferred S.A.No.110/2013 before this Tribunal challenging the measures taken by Respondent No.1 Bank. The said S.A. was allowed by this Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2014 and thereby sale conducted by Respondent No.1 Bank under SARFAESI Act was set aside.

1. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 21.01.2014 passed by this Tribunal in S.A.No.110/2013, Respondent No.1 Bank herein preferred an Appeal before Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai being Appeal No.24/2014. The Applicant herein also joined the said Appeal as Respondent No.12 by making Intervention Application No.227/2017 in the said Appeal. After hearing parties, Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai passed order dated 28.06.2024 confirming judgment and order dated 21.01.2014 passed by this Tribunal and rejected the Appeal filed by Respondent No.1 herein.

2. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to Applicant herein, sale consideration deposited by the Applicant being Auction Purchaser, is required to be returned to the Applicant by Respondent No.1 with interest @18% p.a. from the date of sale till realization along with poundage fee. However, Respondent No.1 Bank has not returned such money to the Applicant till date. The Applicant herein had incurred expenses of Rs.14,10,000/- for contesting the matter before Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai. Therefore, the Applicant has filed the present MA for refund of the said amount.

3. 5. Respondent No.1 Bank has filed its reply to the present application vide Exh.R/9 and denied the statements and averments made therein. It has further contended that Respondent Bank had handed over physical possession of the property in question to the present Applicant on 13.10.2013 and since then, the Applicant is enjoying the said property till date. The Appeal before Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai was filed by the Respondent Bank to protect mutual interest of the Respondent Bank as well as Applicant herein. The Respondent Bank has specifically denied that the Applicant is entitled to interest @18% p.a. or at any other rate and any amount of expenses as claimed and in fact, the Applicant is required to be directed to return physical possession of the property in question to the Respondent Bank. Hence, the

Respondent Bank has prayed for dismissal of the present Misc. Application.

1. 6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record.

2. 7. It is not in dispute that S.A.No.110/2013 was preferred by Respondent Nos. 2 to 12 herein before this Tribunal inter alia challenging the auction proceeding conducted by the Respondent Bank qua disputed property. The said SA came to be allowed by this Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2014, thereby the sale conducted by the Respondent Bank was set aside. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent Bank preferred an Appeal No.24/2014 against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2014 passed by this Tribunal, before Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai. Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai has dismissed the said Appeal vide order dated 28.06.2024 and upheld the judgment and order dated 21.01.2014 passed by this Tribunal in S.A.No.110/2013.

3. 8. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and circumstances on record, the Respondent Bank was bound to refund the amount of Rs.1,17,00,000/- to the present Applicant-Auction Purchaser, which was deposited by the Applicant with the Respondent Bank towards sale consideration of the property in question. Since the Respondent Bank has failed to do so, the Applicant is constrained to file the present Misc. Application before this Tribunal. The Applicant has prayed for refund of the said amount along with interest @18% p.a. from 26.09.2013 till realization and expenses in the sum of Rs.14,10,000/-. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that at the most the Applicant may be awarded interest @6% p.a.

4. 9. The contentions of the Applicant in the present application are two-fold:

1. i. The Applicant is a bona fide purchaser for value and ii. After issuance of Sale Certificate on 03.10.2013 by the Respondent Bank, this Tribunal has set aside the sale vide order dated 21.01.2014 passed in S.A.No.110/2013, which was confirmed by Hon'ble DRAT, Mumbai vide order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Appeal No.24/2014 preferred by the Respondent Bank.

10. The entire controversy in this case has arisen because of the Bank not following the prescribed procedure in conducting auction sale and therefore, the Bank must suffer and should be directed to pay reasonable interest to the Auction Purchaser. This Tribunal is of the opinion that award of interest on the auction money at the rate applicable to fixed deposit or at the rate suggested by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank, is not a correct view. The rate of interest deserves to be enhanced reasonably. In fact, this Tribunal could have considered awarding interest @18% p.a. on the auction money to be refunded to the Applicant, in view of the illegality committed by the Bank in conducting auction and driving the parties to litigation. However, considering the fact that the money of the Bank is a public money, this Tribunal feels that interest of justice would be served if the auction money with 9% p.a. is returned to the Applicant. Such interest be calculated from the date of deposit till the date it is actually paid.

11. In view of the above, following directions are issued:

- • The present Misc. Application is hereby partly allowed.

- • The Applicant is directed to return physical possession of the property in question to the Applicant within a period of one week from today.

- • Respondent No.1 Bank is directed to refund auction money in the sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakhs Only) along with simple interest @9% p.a. from 26.09.2013 till it is actually paid to the

Applicant, on receipt of physical possession of the property in question from Applicant.

- • There shall be no order as to cost.

- • The present Misc. Application accordingly stands disposed of.

Let the file be consigned to the record.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Saloni.