/2022 INSC 0144/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.363 OF 2022
Bank of Baroda             ..Appellant (S)
VERSUS
M/s Karwa Trading Company & Anr.                  ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   20.09.2017   passed   by   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for
Rajasthan   Bench   at   Jaipur   in   D.B.   Special   Appeal   Writ
No.349   of   2017,   by   which   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   has   allowed   the   said   intra­court   appeal   and   has
quashed   and   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   dated
12.01.2017   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   has
1

directed   that   if   the   respondent   ­   borrower   deposits   a
further   sum   of   Rs.17   lakhs   to   the   bank,   the   bank   shall
release   the   property   and   handover   possession   along   with
the   title   deeds   of   the   residential/housing   property   in
question to the borrower and by which the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court   has   further   directed   that   the   SA
No.9/2014   filed   by   the   borrower   before   the   learned   Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is restored to its original number
to   be   heard   on   merits,   the   appellant   herein   ­   Bank   of
Baroda   –   financial   institution   –   secured   creditor   has
preferred the present appeal. 
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   in   nutshell   are   as
under: ­
2.1 That   the   appellant   herein   –   bank   granted   term   loan   of
Rs.100   lakhs   and   cash   credit   limit   of   Rs.95   lakhs   to   the
respondent   –   borrower   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the
borrower) against the security of two mortgaged properties
namely   (i)   industrial   plot   situated   at   Chittor   Road,   Bundi
measuring   500   Sq.Mtrs.   and   (ii)   a   residential/housing
2

property   situated   at   1­Ja­27,   Vikas   Nagar,   Bundi
measuring   198  Sq.Mtrs.  That  the borrower  failed to  repay
the   term   loan   as   per   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the
agreement.   The   account   of   the   borrower   became   NPA   on
31.10.2012.   A   notice   under   Section   13(2)   of   the
Securitisation and  Reconstruction of Financial  Assets and
Enforcement   of   Security   Interest   Act,   2002   (hereinafter
referred   to  as   the   SARFAESI  Act,   2002)  dated   07.01.2013
was   served   upon   the   borrower   demanding   a   sum   of
Rs.1,85,37,218.80/­ The bank took symbolic possession of
the immovable property/residential house and also issued
a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on
22.08.2013. An application was moved under Section 14 of
the   SARFAESI   Act,   2002   which   came   to   be   allowed   on
08.11.2013   and   with   the   police   assistance   the   bank   took
possession   of  the  residential   house,  which   was   one   of  the
mortgaged properties of the borrower, on 25.11.2013.
2.2 That   thereafter   the   bank   issued   a   sale   notice   by   public
auction   of   the   residential   property   dated   16.12.2013.   The
reserve price fixed was Rs.48.65 lakhs for sale of the said
3

secured   asset   in   terms   of   the   procedure   prescribed   under
Rule   8   read   with   Rule   9   of   the   Security   Interest
(Enforcement)   Rules,   2002.   The   date   of   auction   notified
was   20.01.2014.   The   borrower   challenged   the   auction   of
the   bank   by   filing   Securitisation   Application   (SA)
No.09/2014 under   Section  17 of  the SARFAESI   Act, 2002
before   the   DRT,   Jaipur.   An   interim   order   was   passed   by
the   DRT   that   if   the   borrower   deposits   Rs.20   lakhs   on
20.01.2014 by 12.00 noon, the bank shall accept the bids
but   not   finalize   the   bids/confirm   the   sale   of   the   secured
asset   and   if   the   borrower   commits   default   in   payment   of
balance   amount   of   Rs.28.65   lakhs,   the   restraint   order
shall   stand  vacated automatically.  The DRT  also  observed
that if the borrower deposits Rs.48.65 lakhs with the bank
on   or   before   27.01.2014,   the   bank   shall   deliver   the
possession of the secured asset along with the original title
deeds of the property in question. It is not in dispute that
the borrower deposited Rs.48.65 lakhs with the bank.
2.3 That   the  aforesaid interim  order  passed  by  the   DRT  came
to   be   challenged   by   the   bank   in   appeal   before   the   DRAT
4

(Debt   Recovery   Appellate   Tribunal).   It   was   the   case   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   ­   bank   that   in   public   auction   the
bank had received bids up to Rs.71 lakhs and the amount
of debt due against the borrower at that point of time was
above Rs.2 crores and if at all the borrower is interested or
keen to redeem the mortgaged property, he could do so by
discharging the entire liability and not by making payment
of  Rs.48.65 lakhs, as  ordered by   the DRT. It was  also  the
case on behalf of the appellant – bank that order passed by
the DRT dated 17.01.2014 was in violation of Section 13(8)
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, it was submitted on
behalf   of   the   bank   that   the   bank   may   not   find   any
difficulty   in   releasing   the   subject   property   provided   the
borrower is ready to pay a sum of Rs.71 lakhs which is the
highest bid available with the bank. It was submitted that
even this amount would not ultimately go to discharge the
entire liability outstanding against the borrower but still if
the borrower deposits Rs.71 lakhs, the bank may not find
difficulty to release the subject property in question. 
5

2.4 The   DRAT   dismissed   the   appeal   by   observing   that   as   the
reserve   price   was   Rs.48.65   lakhs   which   the   borrower
deposited and the bank had received the bids ranging from
Rs.   61.50   lakhs   to   Rs.71   lakhs   and   the   alleged   bidders
failed to deposit the earnest money and when the borrower
is  ready   to  purchase  the  said  property  for  Rs.71  lakhs  no
fault   can   be   found   with   the   order   passed   by   DRT.   The
order passed by the DRAT dismissing the appeal preferred
by the bank was the subject matter of challenge before the
learned   Single   Judge.   The   learned   Single   Judge   set   aside
both   the   orders   of   DRT   and   DRAT   vide   its   judgment   and
order   dated   12.01.2017   primarily   for   the   reason   that   the
said   orders   were   in   contravention   of   Section   13(8)   of   the
SARFAESI   Act,   2002.   The   judgment   and   order   passed   by
the   learned   Single   Judge   was   challenged   before   the
Division   Bench   of  the  High   Court  by   the  borrower  by  way
of   present   intra­court   appeal.   By   the   impugned   judgment
and   order,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has
allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
and has directed the bank to release the secured property
6

(residential   house)   on   the   borrower   depositing   a   further
sum   of   Rs.17   lakhs   to   the   bank   and   handover   the
possession along with the title deeds to the borrower. 
          
2.5 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court,   the   bank   –   financial   institution   –   secured
creditor preferred the present appeal.  
3. Ms. Praveena Gautam learned counsel appearing on behalf
of  the  appellant – bank has vehemently  submitted that  in
the facts and circumstances of the case the Division Bench
of the High Court has committed a grave error in directing
the   bank   to   release   the   property   and   handover   the
possession   along   with   the   title   deeds   of   the
residential/housing   property   in   question   to   the   borrower
on making a further payment of Rs.17 lakhs only.
3.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on behalf of the appellant – bank that even as observed by
the Division Bench of the High Court the borrower did not
come   forward   to   redeem   the   property   but   to   release   the
7

property   in   favour   of   the   purchaser   on   payment   of   the
reserve   price   of   the   mortgaged   property   in   terms   of   the
auction   notice.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   when   the
dues   were   of   Rs.   1,85,37,218.80/­   at   the   time   when   the
notice   dated   07.01.2013   under   Section   13(2)   of   the
SARFAESI   Act,   2002   was   issued   and   served   upon   the
borrower,   on   payment   of   a   sum   of   Rs.71   lakhs   only   the
borrower cannot be discharged from his liability to pay the
entire dues. 
3.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   –   bank   that   what   was   understood
and   agreed   by   the   bank   was   that   on   payment   of   Rs.71
lakhs   which   was   the   highest   bid   received,   the   borrower
may   be   handed   over   the   possession.   It   is   submitted   that
however, it was specifically made clear that on payment of
Rs.71   lakhs   the   said   amount   would   not   ultimately
discharge   the   entire   liability   outstanding   against   the
borrower.   It   is   submitted   that   aforesaid   has   been
misinterpreted and/or misconstrued by the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court   and   it   is   understood   that   on   deposit   of
8

Rs.71   lakhs   the   bank   agreed   that   the   borrower   be
discharged   from   his   entire   liability   outstanding   against
him. 
3.3 It is further submitted that the Division Bench of the High
Court   has   also   not   property   appreciated   that   the   offer   of
Rs.71   lakhs   in   the   auction   was   received   in   the   year
2013/2014   and   thereafter   the   valuation   has   increased.   It
is   submitted   that   even   the   outstanding   dues   have   also
gone   up   which   was   Rs.   1,85,37,218.80/­   as   on
07.01.2013.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   treating
and/or   considering   Rs.71   lakhs   as   sale/purchase   price
and/or   the   value   of   the   residential   property.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore   when   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High Court passed the judgment and order if the property
could   have   been   auctioned   it   would   have   fetched   much
more   price   than   Rs.71   lakhs.   It   is   submitted   that   on
deposit   of   Rs.71   lakhs   only   the   borrower   cannot   be
discharged from his entire liability. It is submitted that the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Division
9

Bench of the High Court is just contrary to Sub­section (8)
of   Section   13   of   the   SARFAESI   Act,   2002.   It   is   submitted
that as per Sub­section (8) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI
Act,   2002   only   on   deposit/payment   of   entire   payment   of
dues   of   the   secured   creditor   together   with   all   costs,
charges  and   expenses   incurred  by   secured  creditor  to   the
secured creditor, at any time before the date of publication
of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender
from   public,   the   secured   asset   shall   not   be   sold   by   the
secured   creditor.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case
the   amount   due   was   much   more   than   Rs.71   lakhs.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
directing   to   release   the   secured   property   just   on   payment
of   a   total   sum   of   Rs.65.65   lakhs   is   just   contrary   to   Sub­
section (8) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 
3.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   –   bank   that   when   the   subject
property   was   mortgaged   to   the   bank   in   the   housing   loan
account   borrowed   by   the   borrower   and   without   satisfying
10

the entire outstanding dues the mortgaged property cannot
be discharged. 
3.5 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   –   bank   that   the   Division   Bench   of
the High Court has failed to appreciate the reserve price of
Rs.48.65 lakhs was based on the valuation carried out by
the   valuer   of   the   bank   and   the   process   of   the   auction   of
the  subject property  was  through  public  auction  in  which
an   actual   market   price   could   have   been   fetched.   There
could   not   have   been   any   directions   for   redemption   of   the
secured   subject   property   on   making   payment   of   the
reserve price or having paid the average of the two highest
bid   to   the   borrowers   unless   the   entire   dues   including   the
costs and expenses are paid.     
3.6 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   –   bank   that   the   Division   Bench   of
the   High  Court   has  not   properly   appreciated  the   fact  that
the initial order passed by the DRT which was the subject
matter   before   the   DRAT   challenged  by   the   bank   by   which
11

the DRT directed to release/handover the possession of the
mortgaged property to the borrower on deposit of Rs.48.65
lakhs   which   was   the   reserve   price,   was   an   interim   order.
Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not
to   have   passed   the   final   order   discharging   the   borrower
from his entire liability just on payment of Rs.65.65 lakhs.
3.7 Making   the   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal.     
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mrs. Christi
Jain   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents – borrowers. 
4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on behalf  of the borrower  that  as  the highest  bid received
by the bank in the public auction was Rs.71   lakhs which
the   borrower   agreed   to   deposit/pay   and   even   earlier   the
borrower   deposited   a   sum   of   Rs.48.65   lakhs   as   per   the
order   passed   by   the   DRT   dated   17.01.2014,   thereafter
when   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   directed
the bank to release the residential property on deposit of a
12

further sum of Rs.17 lakhs (total making it Rs.65.65 lakhs)
and   thereafter   has   directed   to   handover   the   original   title
deeds   to   the   borrower,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   is   equitable   order   which   does
not   warrant   any   interference   by   this   Court   in   exercise   of
powers   conferred   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of
India. 
4.2 It is submitted that even the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant – bank agreed that on payment of a
total  sum  of   Rs.65.65  lakhs  the  property  in  question  may
be   released.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error
which   warrants   interference   of   this   Court   in   exercise   of
powers   conferred   under   Article   136   of   the   Constitution   of
India. 
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length. 
6. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   by   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   the   Division   Bench   of   the
13

High   Court   has   directed   the   bank   –   secured   creditor   to
release the secured property and handover the possession
along   with   original   title   deeds   of   the   residential/housing
property in question to the borrower on payment of a total
sum   of   Rs.65.65   lakhs.   Thus,   by   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has
released   the   secured   property/mortgaged   property   on
payment of a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs against the total
dues   which   as   such   as   on   07.01.2013   was
Rs.1,85,37,218.80/­. 
6.1  From   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court it appears that the Division Bench of the High
Court   has   treated   and/or   considered   the   market   value   of
the   mortgaged   property   at   Rs.71   lakhs.   The   DRT   when
initially granted the interim relief in favour of the borrower
which   was   the   subject   matter   before   the   DRAT   and   the
learned   Single   Judge   and   thereafter   before   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court,   directed   to   handover   the
possession   of   the   mortgaged   property   to   the   borrower   on
payment   of   Rs.48.65   lakhs   which   was   the   reserve
price/base   price.   The   possession   was   taken   over   by   the
14

bank  under  the  provisions of  the  SARFAESI  Act and after
following   the   proceedings   as   required   under  Section   13   of
the   SARFAESI   Act,   the   mortgaged   property   was   put   to
auction   and   at   that   stage   the   borrower   preferred   an
appeal/application before the DRT under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act and as such the said appeal can be said to
be   technically   pending   as   the   order   dated   17.01.2014
passed   by   the   DRT   was   an   interim   order.   When   the
auction proceedings were initiated under Section 13 of the
SARFAESI Act and after the bank took over the possession
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as per Sub­section
(8)   of   Section   13   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   the   secured   asset
shall   not   be   sold   and/or   transferred   by   the   secured
creditor,   where   the   amount   dues   of   the   secured   creditor
together   with   all   costs,  charges   and   expenses  incurred   by
him   is   tendered   by   the   borrower   or   debtor   to   the   secured
creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice
for   public   auction   or   inviting   quotations   or   tender   from
public   or   private   treaty   for   transfer   by   way   of   lease
assignment   or   sale   of   the   secured   assets.   In   the   present
case   though   as   on   07.01.2013   the   dues   were   Rs.
15

Rs.1,85,37,218.80/­ and without the secured property was
sold   in   a   public   auction   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   has   directed   to   release   the   mortgaged   property   and
handover   the   possession   along   with   original   title   deeds   to
the   borrower   on   the   borrower   depositing/paying   a   total
sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only. At this stage, it is required to
be noted that Rs.65.65 lakhs was not the amount realized
by   selling   the   mortgaged   property   in   a   public   auction.   It
was   only   a   highest   bid   received   and   before   any   further
auction   proceedings   were   conducted,   the   DRT   passed   an
interim   order   directing   to   handover   the   possession   and
handover   the   original   title   deeds   on   payment   of   Rs.48.65
lakhs   which   was   the   base   price,   which   was   the   subject
matter   before   the   DRAT   and   before   the   learned   Single
Judge. Therefore, the borrower did not deposit and was not
ready   to   deposit   the   entire   amount   of   dues   with   secured
creditor   with   all   costs,   charges   and   expenses   incurred   by
the secured creditor. Therefore, it was open for the secured
creditor to sell the mortgaged property which was put as a
security   and   realize   the   amount   by   selling   it   in   a   public
auction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
16

as  per  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court the  borrower
made   an   offer   to   deposit/pay   Rs.71   lakhs   as   a   purchaser
and   not   by   way   of   redeeming   the   mortgaged   property.
Therefore,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   directing   to   release
the mortgaged property/secured property and to handover
the   possession   as   well   as   the   original   title   deeds   to   the
borrower on payment of a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only
is   contrary   to   Sub­section   (8)   of   Section   13   of   the
SARFAESI Act.      
7. Even otherwise on making the payment i.e. Rs.65.65 lakhs
against   the   total   dues   Rs.1,85,37,218.80/­   as   on
07.01.2013   the   entire   liability   outstanding   against   the
borrower   cannot   be   said   to  have  been   discharged.   Even   if
the   mortgaged   property   would   have   been   sold   in   a   public
auction   say   for   an   amount   of   Rs.71   lakhs   and   the   bank
has realized Rs.71 lakhs by selling the mortgaged property,
in   that   case   also   the   liability   of   the   borrower   to   pay   the
balance   amount   would   still   continue.   By   selling   the
mortgaged   property/secured   property   it   cannot   be   said
17

that   the   borrower   is   discharged   from   the   entire   liability
outstanding against him. The liability of the borrower with
respect   to   the   balance   outstanding   dues   would   still   be
continued. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court
has   erred   in   directing   to   release   the   mortgaged
property/secured property and to handover the possession
along   with   the   original   title   deeds   to   the   borrower   on
payment of a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only. 
7. 1  At   the   cost   of   repetition   it   is   observed   that   as   such   the
bank   had   already   initiated   the   proceedings   under   Section
13   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   and   even   the   possession   of   the
mortgaged   property   was   taken   over   by   the   bank   under
Section   14   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   and   thereafter   the
mortgaged   property   was   put   to   sale   by   a   public   auction
and at that stage the borrower wanted to stall the auction
proceedings   and   restrain   the   secured   creditor/bank   from
selling the property. In such a situation the bank/secured
creditor   can   be   restrained   from   selling   the   mortgaged
property/secured   property   where   the   borrower   deposits
entire   dues   that   was   Rs.1,85,37,218.80/­   as   on
18

07.01.2013   with   the   secured   creditor.   Therefore,   the   DRT
in   its   order   dated   17.01.2014   which   as   such   was   an
interim relief order pending the appeal under Section 17 of
the  SARFAESI  Act  was  not justified in directing  to  release
the mortgaged property and handover the possession along
with the original title deeds to the borrower on payment of
Rs.48.65   lakhs   only   which   was   the   base   price/   reserve
price,   which   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has
increased to Rs.65.65 lakhs on the ground that the highest
bid   received   was   Rs.71   lakhs   (which   was   not   materialized
as   the   highest   bidder   did   not   come   forward).   Unless   and
until   the   borrower   was   ready   to   deposit/pay   the   entire
amount payable together with all costs and expenses with
the   secured   creditor,   the   borrower   cannot   be   discharged
from the entire liability outstanding. Therefore, as such no
order could have been passed either by the DRT and/or by
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   to   discharge   the
borrower   from   the   entire   liability   outstanding   and   to
discharge   the   mortgaged   property   and   handover   the
possession  along   with  original  title  deeds to   the  borrower.
As   such   the   learned   Single   Judge   rightly   set   aside   the
19

orders   passed   by   the   DRT   as   well   as   by   the   DRAT
considering   Section   13(8)   of   the   SARFAESI   Act.   The
learned   Single   Judge   was   right   in   setting   aside   the   order
passed   by   the   DRT   confirmed   by   the   DRAT.   The   Division
Bench   of   the   High  Court   has  erred   in   interfering   with   the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and has erred in
directing   to   release   the   mortgaged   property/secured
property   and   handover   the   possession   along   with   the
original   title   deeds   to   the   borrower   on   payment   of   a   total
sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only. 
7.2  However,   at   the   same   time   the   order   dated   17.01.2014
passed   by   the   DRT   was   an   interim   relief   order   in   SA
No.9/2014 and therefore even if the interim relief order is
set aside by this Court the appeal/application will have to
be   decided   and   disposed   of   on   merits   and   on   whatever
grounds which may be available to the borrower. However,
at   the   same   time   the   bank   cannot   be   restrained   from
selling   the   mortgaged   property   by   holding   the   public
auction   and   realise   the   amount   and   recover   the
outstanding   dues,   unless   the   borrower   deposits/pays   the
20

entire   amount   due   and   payable   along   with   the   costs
incurred by the secured creditor as per Section 13(f) of the
SARFAESI Act.                 
8. In   view   of  the   above   and  for  the  reasons   stated  above  the
present   appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned   judgment   and
order   dated   20.09.2017   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of
the High Court in DBSAW No.349/2017 is hereby quashed
and   set   aside   and   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single
Judge quashing and setting aside the order passed by the
DRT   dated   17.01.2014   confirmed   by   the   DRAT   is   hereby
restored.           
            It   will   be   open   for   the   appellant   –   bank   to   proceed
further   with   the   auction   proceedings   of   the   mortgaged
property   in   auction   i.e.   residential   house   by   inviting   the
bids   afresh   and   whatever   the   amount   is   already   paid   by
the   borrower,   may   be   in   pursuance   to   the   interim   relief
order   passed   by   the   DRT   and/or   the   impugned   judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,
the   same   may   be   adjusted   against   the   dues/total   liability
of   the   borrower.   At   the   same   time   DRT   to   decide   and
21

dispose   of   SA   No.09/2014   filed   by   the   borrower   under
Section   17   of   the   SARFAESI   Act   in   accordance   with   law
and on its own merits and on the whatever grounds which
may   be   available   to   the   borrower.   It   is   also   observed   and
directed   that   in   case   pursuance   to   the   orders   passed   by
the   DRT   and   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   if   the
borrower   is   put   into   possession,   considering   the   fact   that
the   mortgaged   property   is   a   residential   property,   till   the
auction is finalized and the mortgaged property is sold in a
public auction, the possession of the borrower may not be
disturbed.   However,   it   is   directed   that   on   public   auction
being   finalized   and   the   mortgaged   property   is   sold   by   the
bank   the   borrower   has   to   handover   the   peaceful   and
vacant   possession   of   the   property   to   the  bank   and/or   the
auction  purchaser. However, in  the  meantime the original
title   deeds   of   the   mortgaged   property   be   retained   by   the
bank.   In   the   meantime,   and   till   the   borrower   remains   in
possession   of   the   mortgaged   property   as   per   the   present
order   and   till   the   mortgaged   property   is   sold   in   a   public
auction,   the   borrower   shall   not   transfer   and/or   alienate
the   mortgaged   property   in   any   manner   whatsoever
22

including   the   possession.   The   present   appeal   is   allowed
with   the   above   further   observations   and   directions
accordingly.   In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case
there shall be no order as to costs. 
…………………………………J.
                   (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi, 
February,  10 th
 2022.
23