AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant had filed S.A. bearing no. 381/2025 titled as Pagoda Cables Private Limited V. State Bank of India & others wherein an application IA No. 3643/2025 was filed for restraining the respondents 1 and 4 from taking any further steps in pursuance of the e-auction dated 25.09.2025, including the issuance of the sale certificate etc. The application IA No. 3643/2026 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.01.2026. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:-
9.From perusal of the record, it is clear that the auction was to be conducted on behalf of State Bank of India by auction agency. The applicant has deposited an amount of Rs.71.1 lacs in the bank net e-wallet on 25.09.225. There is no evidence that applicant has deposited the EMD as per sale notice. Merely keeping the money in E-wallet does not mean that he has deposited the EMD. Unless and until a person deposit EMD, he can not participate in e-auction.
10.From perusal of the record, it is clear that the applicant merely kept the amount in e-wallet and has not deposited the EMD, therefore, he was not permitted to participate in the e-auction. Therefore, there appears no substance in the contention of applicant. The applicant has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court has stayed the proceeding till filing of the SA before this Tribunal. That order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the order of the Delhi High Court so far as it concerns to the stay of the proceedings. Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has not considered the matter on merits of the case. Therefore, this Tribunal is free to consider on merits. On merits, there appears no substance in the contention of the applicant as discussed above. Therefore, the IA no.3643/2025 of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.
Sh. Pallav Saxena argued that an amount of Rs.75.10 lakhs as reflected from E-wallet, Annexure A-3 at page 55 of the paper book, was deposited but there is no material to demonstrate that the said amount was deposited as EMD as per the sale notice. The DRT in the impugned order has correctly observed that there is no evidence that the appellant had deposited the EMD as per the sale notice. Merely keeping the money in E-wallet does not mean that he has deposited the EMD. Careful perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which warrants interference from this Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed.
It is made clear that the concerned DRT shall decide the S.A. on merit without being influenced by any observation made in this order.