AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
effectively the same and grant of the same in the impugned order shall tantamount to final decision on the that part of the prayer made in S.A. No. 540/2023. After deciding the main prayer of the S.A. No.540/2023 at the interim stage, nothing remains for the Lower Tribunal to decide on the point of legality and correctness of sale notice and auction notice. Giving main relief of the main case by way of deciding the interim application shall tantamount final disposal of main case on that point. The same is not permissible under the law. In the impugned order the DRT-III, Mumbai has even ordered the Appellant/Bank to return the amount deposited by the Auction Purchaser (who was admittedly not even party to the S.A.), within one month from the date of the impugned order and has further directed that, in the event of failure to do so, the Appellant/Bank would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum. It is pertinent to note that it was not even prayed in I.A. No. 3140/2025. Thus, the direction for refund of the amount deposited by the Auction Purchaser has been issued without affording the Auction Purchaser an opportunity of being heard.
Last but not least, on a perusal of the entire impugned order, it is apparent that the Learned DRT-III, Mumbai has not considered which of the rival parties had the prima facie case or in whose favour the balance of convenience lies at the time of passing the impugned order. The Learned DRT-III, Mumbai has also not considered whether irreparable loss or injury was likely to be caused to either party if the interim relief was granted or refused. The practice adopted by the Learned DRT-III, Mumbai, if permitted to continue, would result in the S.A. No. 340/2023 remaining pending while the substantive reliefs sought therein are repeatedly being granted at the interim stage through Interim Applications, thereby bringing the substantive proceedings to an end without final adjudication of the S.A. itself. Such practice cannot be sustained in law
In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Mumbai is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Learned DRT-III, Mumbai for de-novo consideration and fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Learned DRT-III, Mumbai shall consider all the relevant facts, contentions of the parties and the applicable provisions of law and decide the S.A. and the pending Interim Applications afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 51/2026 is disposed of.
All pending, I.As., if any, stand dismissed. Sd/-Chairperson