SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORSversusMR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.

254            SUPREME COURT
                         [2022]REPORTS
                                2 S.C.R. 254              [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A          SRS 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 of
      jurisdiction by High Court – Respondent no.1-writ petitioner bought
C     properties auctioned in pursuance of Recovery Certificate which
      was in favour of bank – 25% of the bid price deposited as earnest
      money – Respondent no.1 filed application seeking some clarity in
      the matter, replied by Bank – However, thereafter the Recovery
      Officer dismissed the application and forfeited 10% of the amount
D     deposited– Appeal filed by respondent no.1, dismissed by DRT –
      Appeal before DRAT, no interim relief granted – Respondent-Bank
      herein sought to put the property to auction – Application to seek
      interim relief from the DRAT was renotified after the date of the
      proposed auction – Apprehending the interim relief application to
      become infructuous, respondent no.1 filed writ petition before High
E
      Court – Writ petition disposed of by High Court, further opportunity
      granted to deposit the balance amount with damages – Review
      petition, dismissed – On appeal by original respondent no.2-original
      borrower – Held: What was challenged before High Court was non-
      grant of interim relief pending the appeal before DRAT – However,
F     High Court decided the writ petition as if it was considering the
      final decision of DRAT – Order passed by DRT confirming the order
      passed by the Recovery Officer forfeiting 10% amount deposited
      by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by DRAT – Main
      appeal was yet to be decided by DRAT on merits – High Court made
G     the proceedings before DRAT infructuous as after the impugned
      judgment nothing further is required to be decided by DRAT – High
      Court went beyond the scope and ambit of the proceedings before
      it and exceeded its jurisdiction – Judgment passed by High Court
      set aside – DRAT to decide the appeal.

H
                                      254
      SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS. v.                          255
                 MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-                  A
1303 of 2022.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2021 and 03.12.2021
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.12530 of 2021
and Review Petition No.197 of 2021.
      Ritesh Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants.                                 B

      Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Amit, Ms. Kajal Rani, Jeetendra Kumar,
Surendra Singh Rana, Bharat J. Joshi, Anbarasan Nathar Paul, Ikshit
Singhal, 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 the                     C
Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned judgment      D
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.
       2. That Respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner was the
auction purchaser, who purchased the properties which were auctioned         E
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
                                                                             F
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.                                          G
      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
DRT-II, Delhi on 19.12.2019. The said appeal came to be dismissed by
the DRT-II vide order dated 18.03.2020. Thereafter Respondent No.1
herein - original writ petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.91 of       H
256             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D           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
            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
E           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
F     borrower has preferred the present Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1303 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.1302-1303 of 2022.
G
            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.
H
      SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS. v.                           257
           MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       3.2 The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that          A
what was challenged before it was regarding non-grant 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
                                                                              B
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          C
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          D
present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is/are hereby quashed and 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     E
four 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.
                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H