Supreme Court of India
SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS versus MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR. on 16 February 2022
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
ASRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS.
v.
MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1303 of 2022)
B
FEBRUARY 16, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Writ petition – Exceeding ofjurisdiction by High Court – Respondent no.1-writ petitioner boughtCproperties auctioned in pursuance of Recovery Certificate whichwas in favour of bank – 25% of the bid price deposited as earnestmoney – Respondent no.1 filed application seeking some clarity inthe matter, replied by Bank – However, thereafter the RecoveryOfficer dismissed the application and forfeited 10% of the amountDdeposited– Appeal filed by respondent no.1, dismissed by DRT –Appeal before DRAT, no interim relief granted – Respondent-Bankherein sought to put the property to auction – Application to seekinterim relief from the DRAT was renotified after the date of theproposed auction – Apprehending the interim relief application tobecome infructuous, respondent no.1 filed writ petition before HighECourt – Writ petition disposed of by High Court, further opportunitygranted to deposit the balance amount with damages – Reviewpetition, dismissed – On appeal by original respondent no.2-originalborrower – Held: What was challenged before High Court was non-grant of interim relief pending the appeal before DRAT – However,FHigh Court decided the writ petition as if it was considering thefinal decision of DRAT – Order passed by DRT confirming the orderpassed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount depositedby the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by DRAT – Mainappeal was yet to be decided by DRAT on merits – High Court madeGthe proceedings before DRAT infructuous as after the impugnedjudgment nothing further is required to be decided by DRAT – HighCourt went beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings beforeit and exceeded its jurisdiction – Judgment passed by High Courtset aside – DRAT to decide the appeal.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1303 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2021 and 03.12.2021of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.12530 of 2021and Review Petition No.197 of 2021.
Ritesh Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants.
Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Amit, Ms. Kajal Rani, Jeetendra Kumar,Surendra Singh Rana, Bharat J. Joshi, Anbarasan Nathar Paul, IkshitSinghal, Vipin Kumar Saxena, Maneesh Saxena, Ms. Sujata K. Muni,Kunwar Siddharth Singh, Mukesh Kumar Singh for Mukesh Kumar Singh& Co., Som Raj Choudhury, Samrender Kumar, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned judgmentand order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WritPetition (Civil) No.12530 of 2021 and in Review Petition No.197 of 2021,the original Respondent No.2 has preferred the present appeals.
2. That Respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner was theauction purchaser, who purchased the properties which were auctionedin pursuance of Recovery Certificate No.6/2016 which was in favour ofthe Corporation Bank (now merged with the Union Bank of India) for asum of Rs.85 lakhs. The reserved price of the properties was fixed atRs.54 lakhs. Respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner made the highestbid of Rs.85 lakhs. After making the said bid and after making the earnestmoney 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 beforethe Recovery Officer seeking some clarity in the matter. The same wasreplied to by the Bank. However, thereafter the Recovery Officerdismissed the application of the petitioner on 28.11.2019 and forfeited10% of the amount deposited by him.
2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer, RespondentNo.1 herein had preferred an appeal being Appeal No.21 of 2019 beforeDRT-II, Delhi on 19.12.2019. The said appeal came to be dismissed bythe DRT-II vide order dated 18.03.2020. Thereafter Respondent No.1herein - original writ petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.91 of A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A2019 before the DRAT challenging the order of DRT dated 18.03.2020.The DRAT, however did not grant any interim relief to him andconsequently Respondent - Bank herein sought to put the property toauction on 10.11.2021. The application to seek interim relief from theDRAT was renotified on 17.11.2021 i.e. after the date of the proposedauction and therefore apprehending that his interim relief applicationBwould become infructuous, Respondent No.1 herein preferred the presentwrit petition before the High Court. Though the appeal before the DRATwas pending and what was challenged before the High Court was withregard to not granting any interim relief against the auction, by theimpugned judgment and order the High Court has disposed of the writCpetition by granting one further opportunity to the original writ petitionerto deposit the balance amount along with the damages quantified at Rs.5lakhs. The High Court has passed the following order:
“13. In the aforesaid circumstances, we grant one opportunity tothe petitioner to deposit the balance amount along with damagesDquantified at Rs.5 Lakhs, within the next two weeks. The depositshall be made with the respondent bank within the aforesaid period.In case, the deposit is made in these terms, the respondent bankshall proceed to deliver the possession of the properties to thepetitioner. The Recovery Officer is directed to release the 25%of the amount deposited by the petitioner with him, along with upEto date interest, within the next 10 days to the respondent Bank,and to confirm the sale. The Recovery Officer shall take all stepsunder the law to perfect the title of the petitioner.”
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, original respondent No.2 – originalFborrower has preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1303 of 2022.
2.3 After the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 passed in WritPetition (C) No.12530 of 2021, a review petition was filed which hasbeen dismissed by the High Court which is the subject matter of CivilAppeal Nos.1302-1303 of 2022.G
3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties andperused the impugned judgment and order.
3.1 Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court, we are of the opinion that the same passed by theHigh Court is unsustainable.H
SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS. v.MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
3.2 The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact thatwhat was challenged before it was regarding non-grant of any interimrelief pending the appeal before the DRAT. Main appeal was yet to beconsidered by the DRAT on merits. From the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court hasdecided and disposed of the writ petition as if the High Court wasconsidering the final decision of the DRAT. The order passed by theDRT confirming the order passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting10% amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decidedby the DRAT. Therefore, the High Court as such has gone beyond thescope and ambit of the proceedings before it.
3.3 By passing the impugned judgment and order the High Courthas as such made the proceedings before the DRAT infructuous, asafter the impugned judgment and order nothing further is required to bedecided by the DRAT. Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in itsjurisdiction by passing the impugned judgment and order.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is/are hereby quashed and set aside. Now, the DRAT tofinally decide and dispose of the Appeal No.91 of 2019 in accordancewith law and on its own merits. DRAT is directed to finally decide anddispose of the said appeal at the earliest, preferably within a period offour months from the date of the receipt of the present order.
Present appeals are accordingly Allowed to the aforesaid extent.No costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeals allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H