SREI Equipment Finance Limited vs Simran Kaur Gogia on 28 December 2022

1. After having heard the Counsel appearing for both sides for some time, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the auction sale did not fructify as the auction bidder did not proceed to deposit the entire amount payable. The sale has been cancelled and therefore, the impugned order, in fact, has become infructuous because what is prevented is the issuance of the sale certificate to the auction purchaser. The Appellant is mainly aggrieved by the reasons stated by the Ld. P.O. in the impugned order with regard to the pendency of the matter before the NCLT.

2. In fact, the proceedings before the NCLT have got no bearing upon these proceedings. However, I am not going into the merits of the case as submitted by both sides and agreed upon, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the D.R.T-III,

Mumbai for fresh consideration of the S.A. in accordance with the law.

3. The reply shall be filed by the parties at the earliest and the pleadings in the S.A. completed.

4. The S.A. shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at rate way within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- Chairperson rm-30