Yogesh Tyagi vs Dena Bank And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

The appellant had earlier approached the Tribunal below by filing S.A. challenging the cancellation of the e-auction on the ground that it was arbitrary, illegal and unlawful. While hearing the appellant on the interim relief, the Tribunal below vide its order dated 4.6.2014 had directed that if the amount offered by the highest bidder in fresh sale of the property as and when held was found equivalent to the amount offered by the appellant, the Bank would consider the offer of the appellant and if the offer by the fresh bidder was found on the higher side, the sale could be confirmed in favour of the said party. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant had filed an appeal before this Tribunal. Thus the appellant is in second round before this Tribunal.

The Bank had then come forward to disclose that the property in question had been sold for a sum of Rs. 1,84,25,000/- and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the said purchasers. The appellant was then made to implead the auction purchaser, and the said appeal was finally disposed of on 16.2.2015.

While disposing the said appeal, this Tribunal took note of the fact that matter had been taken by the Bank to the Delhi High Court as well by filing a writ petition. The High Court had declined to interfere in the order by observing that this Tribunal had necessary power and jurisdiction to examine the prayer of the petitioner to modify and vacate the ad interim order. This Tribunal otherwise was of the view that the appellant may have to take appropriate action to challenge the subsequent events i.e. the auction of the property which had taken place. The Counsel for the appellant had pleaded that the appellant had already challenged the sale in favour of the auction purchasers. The appeal pending before this Tribunal was accordingly disposed of with directions that the status quo order dated 1st October, 2014, to continue for 10 days giving liberty to the parties to move an appropriate application before the Tribunal below.

Appellant had challenged the order passed by the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court. The High Court while disposing the writ petition directed the DRT to hear all the parties including the auction purchasers while allowing the status quo granted by this Tribunal to continue for a week from the date of the order passed by the High Court, it is in this background the Tribunal below has passed the impugned order giving rise to filing of the present appeal.

The Tribunal below has now considered the ground of challenge made by the appellant. The stand of the Bank has been that the property has been re-sold and no right had accrued in favour of the appellant on the ground that he was the highest bidder in the e-auction, which was cancelled. The reason which had prompted the Bank to cancel the e-auction as reflected in the letter dated 29.4.2014, which is reproduced, was that only one bid had been received by the Bank. After considering various submissions made before it, the Tribunal has considered the plea of the appellant that once he received a message of 'congratulations' the auction in his favour was complete for Rs. 1,66,20,000/-. The Tribunal however has not accepted this plea. The Tribunal has held that this would not be enough to conclude that the auction in favour of the appellant was complete and concluded as this had not been approved by the authorized officer.

Thereafter the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that in the subsequent process also one single bid was received. The Tribunal thus having regard to these circumstances, has thought it appropriate to explore the possibility of realizing more amount by directing inter se bidding between the appellant and the auction purchasers (respondents 6 and 7). While directing inter se bidding, the Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1.90 crore within one week before the Tribunal below in the form of Demand Draft/Pay Order as this was the amount which the Appellant had offered to the Bank. The Tribunal has also fixed the reserve price at Rs. 1.90 crore. The Tribunal has further directed that in case the appellant fails to deposit this amount within the stipulated period, the sale in favour of respondents 6 and 7 shall be treated as confirmed automatically.

The Counsel for the appellant would urge that imposing a condition requiring him to deposit Rs. 1.90 crore is very onerous. The appellant is, however ready to deposit 10% of the amount offered by him and even is willing to raise it to 25% of the said amount of offer which, as per the Counsel, should be sufficient to enable him to participate in the inter se bidding. In this regard, the Counsel has placed before me the e-mail communication whereby the Bank has informed the appellant that he is having a pre-approved loan of Rs. 1.90 lac subject to certain conditions.

I have considered the submissions made before me. I find that the prayer made by the appellant to allow him to participate in the inter se bidding with respondents 6 and 7 by depositing 10% or 25% of the amount offered by him would not be fair in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is a case where the sale had been confirmed in favour of respondents 6 and 7 and they have deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1,84,25,000/-. If there has to be an inter se bidding between the parties, the fair course open would be to require the appellant to match the amount which has been deposited by the auction purchasers (respondents 6 and 7). Any concession or consideration shown to the appellant would lead to unfair advantage to the appellant, inasmuch as that the respondents 6 and 7 would participate in the inter se bidding after having deposited a huge amount which reopens of the order confirming the sale in their favour, whereas the appellant would be able to participate by only depositing a much lessor amount. This would make the parties to participate on terms which are clearly unequal. No such prayer even has been made before the Tribunal below, and so it cannot be allowed being unjust.

At this stage, Counsel for the appellant states that the time allowed by the Tribunal below for the appellant to deposit this amount is short and the appellant may not be able to arrange the full amount in this short period. The Counsel, accordingly, prays that a period of two weeks may be allowed to him to deposit this amount to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal below.

I find that this prayer made by the Counsel for the appellant apparently is just and reasonable. Accordingly, two weeks' time from today to make the deposit of Rs. 1.90 crore as prayed by the appellant can be allowed to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal below to enable him to participate in the inter se bidding. Since the appeal is being disposed of without any interference in the impugned order, it is not considered necessary to issue notice to the respondents. The Tribunal below would adjourn the hearing, which is now fixed before it on 27.5.2015, to a suitable date allowing two weeks' time to the appellant to make the deposit.

The present appeal is disposed of in limine in above terms.