Siddharth Computer International vs State Bank Of India

This Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2020 disposed of application bearing I.A. No.440/2020 for waiver of pre-deposit. However, this Tribunal again vide order dated 24.05.2023 in view of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & another V Prudent ARC Limited & others (Civil Appeal No.8969/2022, decided on 05.01.2023) reopened the issue of pre-deposit by observing that the borrower is not entitled to claim adjustment/appropriation of the amount realised by selling the secured properties and deposited by the auction purchaser when the auction sale is also under challenge.

Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate for the appellant argued that the order dated 16.11.2020 cannot be review by the subsequent order dated 24.05.2023 and there is no observation in the order dated 24.05.2023 regarding any error apparent on the face of the record.

After considering the totality of the circumstances and in view of the submission made by counsel for the appellant, the issue of pre-deposit is already decided in terms of the order dated 16.12.2020.

Appellant filed S.A. No.50/2020 titled as M/s Siddhartha Computer International V State Bank of India which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. The appellant in the S.A. filed an application bearing No.867/2020 for quashing the auction notice dated 10.09.2020 issued by respondent in respect of the subject property bearing Flat No.C-64 (Front side First Floor, without roof right), Inderpuri, New Delhi. The DRT-I, Delhi, vide the impugned order dated 01.10.2020 ordered that earlier auction was held on 26.02.2020 and the same was withdrawn and thereafter another auction notice was issued on 23.03.2020. It was also observed that the factum of auction was within the knowledge of the concerned parties and publication was also carried out as per rules. DRT-I, Delhi did not find any infirmity or illegality in the auction notice dated 10.09.2020 and the S.A. filed by Prabha Singh, the mortgagor was also declined vide order dated 09.07.2019. DRT also observed that the property was put to auction repeatedly and it was in the knowledge of the appellant and accordingly I.A. No.867/2020 was dismissed.

Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate for the respondent stated that the auction of the subject property was conducted on 30.09.2021 and thereafter the sale certificate was also in favour of the auction purchaser. It is also informed that the possession of the subject property was also delivered to the auction purchaser who at present is in possession of the subject property. Ms. Tomar also referred to the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) 53/2021 titled as State Bank of India V M/s Siddhartha Computer International, A Partnership Firm through its Partner Mr. Sushant Singh & another wherein respondent was directed to deliver the possession of the auctioned property to the auction purchaser without any further delay. Accordingly Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate for the respondent stated that the possession of the subject property was delivered to the auction purchaser in accordance with law and in compliance of the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 53/2021. Ms. Tomar vehemently argued that in these circumstances, the present appeal is not maintainable and does not require further adjudication.

Sh. Pallav Saxena, Advocate for the appellant stated that the present appeal may be disposed of in the abovementioned circumstances but a direction be issued to the concerned DRT (now DRT-2, Delhi) to decide the S.A. No.50/2020 (now TSA No.672/2022) without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned order dated 01.10.2020.

The present appeal is disposed of as does not require further adjudication. However, DRT concerned shall not be influenced by any observation made in the order dated 01.10.2020 while disposing of the present S.A. No.50/2020 (TSA No.672/2022) unless and until it is required under law.