SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS versus MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 16-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 254
254
SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS.
v.
MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1303 of 2022)
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-
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.
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
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisifed with the impugned judgment
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
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
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.
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
SRS ADVERTISING & MARKETING PVT. LTD. ORS.  v.
MR. KAMAL GARG & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.