No.1735 of 2022 is filed in the Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28608 of 2019), by the Applicant (original Respondent No.6-M/s. In order to secure the credit facilities/ loan granted by the Appellant Bank to the Respondent No.4 and 5, the Respondent No.1 on 15.04.2005 had mortgaged its interest in the subject property to the Appellant Bank. (v) In the said Securitization Application No 115 of 2019, the Respondent no.1 Rajat Infrastructure had also filed an Interlocutory Application No 822 of 2019 seeking interim relief restraining the Appellant Bank from proceeding further with the proposed auction sale, pending the main application. It was observed in the said order by the High Court that: – “the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal before the learned DRAT, where no pre-deposit is required.” (vii) Pending the said Writ Petition before the High Court, the auction having taken place, the Respondent no.6 M/s. (ix) The Appellant Bank, being aggrieved by the observations made by the High Court in the order dated 25.11.2019, with regard to the pre-deposit, preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.28608 of 2019), and the Respondent no.6 also being aggrieved by the order of the High Court passed on 16.12.2019 dismissing its review petition, preferred an appeal being the Civil Appeal No.1903 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No.1753 of 2020) before this Court. We also direct that in case respondent no.1 files an appeal within 30 days of the pronouncement of this order it shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation.” A corrigendum order directing some corrections was passed by the court on 04.03.2020. The Court vide order dated 20.03.2020 allowed the extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration by 30.04.2020, further observing that: – “No further extension shall be granted.” (xii) Another M.A. (xvi) On 11.07.2022, the court passed an interim order in the said applications directing to list the matter on 26.07.2022 and observed: “As at present, we have not passed any order, whether on the prayer for enlargement of time, as sought for by the respondent no.6 or on the other prayer for not granting any other enlargement but, we still leave it open for the respondent no.6 to make the requisite payment before the next date. However, during the course of hearing on 10.08.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant did not press for the said I.A.
The court taking note 13 of the submissions of the respective parties passed following order on 10.08.2022. We have only taken note of the submissions of the respective parties in this regard and are not making any comments on the merits of the submissions either way. The Respondent no.1 Rajat Infrastructure has mainly contended that the Miscellaneous Application filed in the disposed of Civil Appeal, seeking directions to the bank for issuing the sale certificate is not maintainable, more particularly when the Applicant has failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court from time to time and when the Applicant has also not complied with the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules. However, taking note of the orders passed by this Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.03 of 2020, extending period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts and Tribunals, including this Court, on account of the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, it may be safely presumed that the time limit whenever expired in the proceedings was extended upto February 2022, 16 and that in the instant case, therefore the Applicant was required to deposit the amount as directed by this Court in the order dated 12.05.2020, two months after February 2022 i.e., on or before 30.04.2022. At this juncture, it would also be necessary to refer to Rule 9 of the said Rules which deals with “Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and 17 delivery of possession etc.,” with regard to the sale of immovable secured assets through e-auction mode. Time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession, etc.- [(1) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall take place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) of rule 8 or notice of sale has been served to the borrower: Provided further that if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub-rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorized officer shall serve, affix and publish notice of sale of not less than fifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.] (2) The sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the authorized officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor: Provided that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of [rule8]: Provided further that if the authorized officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor (5) In default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited [to the secured creditor] and the property shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold. (7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to any encumbrances, the authorized officer may, if the thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to discharge the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sufficient to meet the contingencies or further cost, expenses and interest as may be determined by him: [Provided that after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus available out of the money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall be paid 19 to the purchaser within fifteen days from the date of finalization of the sale.] (9) The authorized officer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) above. As per sub-rule (6) thereof, on the confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorized Officer exercising the power of sale would issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the form prescribed under the Rules. 1902 & 1903 of 2020 vide the order dated 02.03.2020 permitted the Respondent No.6 (Applicant herein) to deposit the balance of sale amount till 20.03.2020. The Applicant thereafter deposited with the bank a sum of Rs.33,75,88,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crores Seventy-Five Lakhs Eighty-Eight Thousand Only) on 22.07.2022 after deducting 1 percent TDS of the total auction purchase value.
Ltd., as to how the deposit of Rs.34,41,50,000/- on 22.07.2022 and the deposit of Rs.7,17,02,859.45/- on 26.08.2022 made with the Appellant Bank were in due compliance of the orders passed by the Court from time to time and particularly of the order dated 12.05.2020. Even if a lenient view is taken considering the orders passed by this Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 that the period of limitation had stood extended upto February, 2022 on account of the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, then also the Applicant was required to make deposit of the entire balance amount with interest within two months thereafter as per the order passed by this Court on 12.05.2020 in M.A. Dushyant Dave for the Applicant that this Court should treat the deposits made by the Applicant on 22.07.2022 and on 26.08.2022 as due compliance of the order dated 12.05.2020, extending the time limit by exercising the inherent powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or exercising the powers conferred on the court under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot be accepted in view of the statutory provision contained in Rule 9 of the said Rules. It cannot be gainsaid that the court in exercise of powers under Article 142 cannot ignore any substantive statutory provision dealing with the subject. Apart from the fact that the Applicant had not complied (1998) 4 SCC 409 29 with the orders passed by this Court from time to time in the successive applications filed by it, and more particularly the order dated 12.05.2020 passed in M.A. Such a trend emerging in this Court of filing repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, without any legal foundation has been strongly deprecated by this Court in Supertech Limited vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others, in which it was observed as under: – “A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. and Others had preferred any appeal before the DRAT in view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.1902 of 2020 on 02.03.2020, and if preferred whether the same is pending or not. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] NEW DELHI; October 04, 2023
