The recent legal case delves into the issue of judicial overreach in the context of interim relief. The Court’s analysis underscores the importance of upholding legal principles and ensuring due process in such matters.
Facts
- Respondent No.1, the original writ petitioner, made the highest bid of Rs.85 lakhs for the properties at auction.
- The DRAT did not grant any interim relief to the petitioner, leading the Bank to schedule the auction on 10.11.2021.
- The Recovery Officer dismissed the petitioner’s application on 28.11.2019 and forfeited 10% of the amount deposited by the petitioner.
- The petitioner deposited Rs.21,25,000/- (25% of the bid price) and sought clarity from the Recovery Officer.
- Respondent No.1 appealed the Recovery Officer’s order to DRT-II on 19.12.2019 (appeal No.21 of 2019).
- The High Court dismissed a review petition related to Writ Petition (C) No.12530 of 2021, leading to the present Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1303 of 2022 by the original borrower (Respondent No.2).
- Respondent No.1 lodged an appeal (No.91 of 2019) before the DRAT challenging the DRT’s order of 18.03.2020.
- The reserved price for the properties was set at Rs.54 lakhs, and Respondent No.1 purchased them for Rs.85 lakhs in auction.
- The court directed the Recovery Officer to release 25% of the deposited amount to the Bank within 10 days, along with interest, and to confirm the sale.
- Petitioner granted one opportunity to deposit balance amount and damages within two weeks.
- Respondent filed writ petition before High Court fearing interim relief application would become infructuous.
- High Court disposed of writ petition by granting further opportunity to original petitioner.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- High Court decided and disposed of the writ petition as if it was considering the final decision of the DRAT.
- The High Court did not properly understand that the challenge before it was about the non-grant of interim relief pending the appeal before the DRAT.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was deemed unsustainable.
- The main appeal was yet to be considered by the DRAT on merits.
- The High Court’s judgment and order made the proceedings before the DRAT infructuous.
- After the High Court’s judgment and order, nothing further is required to be decided by the DRAT.
- The order passed by the DRT regarding forfeiting 10% of the amount deposited by the auction purchaser was yet to be decided by the DRAT.
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the impugned judgment and order.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- DRAT directed to decide and dispose of the appeal within four months
- Deposit to be made with the respondent bank within the specified period
- DRAT to decide the Appeal No.91 of 2019 in accordance with the law and on its own merits
- The present appeals succeed and no costs are awarded
- The appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned
- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: SRS ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. KAMAL GARG (2022 INSC 192)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001302-001303 / 2022
