/2022 INSC 0152/
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1302­1303 OF 2022
SRS Advertising & Marketing 
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.           ..Appellant(s)
Versus
Mr. Kamal Garg & Anr.           ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisifed   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   22.11.2021   passed   by   the   High
Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.12530 of 2021 and
in   Review  Petition   No.197  of  2021,  the  original  Respondent
No.2 has preferred the present appeals.  
2. That  Respondent  No.1 herein –  original  writ petitioner
was   the   auction   purchaser,   who   purchased   the   properties
1

which   were   auctioned   in   pursuance   of   Recovery   Certificate
No.6/2016   which   was   in   favour   of   the   Corporation   Bank
(now   merged   with   the   Union   Bank   of   India)   for   a   sum   of
Rs.85 lakhs.   The reserved price of the properties was fixed
at   Rs.54   lakhs.     Respondent   No.1   –   original   writ   petitioner
made the highest bid of Rs.85 lakhs.  After making the said
bid and after making the earnest money deposit to the tune
of   Rs.21,25,000/­   (being   25%   of   the   bid   price)   Respondent
no.1   –   the   original   writ   petitioner   moved   an   application
before   the   Recovery   Officer   seeking   some   clarity   in   the
matter.     The   same   was   replied   to   by   the   Bank.     However,
thereafter   the   Recovery  Officer   dismissed   the   application  of
the   petitioner   on   28.11.2019   and   forfeited   10%   of   the
amount deposited by him.  
2.1 Aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   Recovery   Officer,
Respondent   No.1   herein   had   preferred   an   appeal   being
Appeal   No.21   of   2019   before   DRT­II,   Delhi   on   19.12.2019.
The   said   appeal   came   to   be   dismissed   by   the   DRT­II   vide
order dated 18.03.2020.  Thereafter Respondent No.1 herein
­   original   writ   petitioner   preferred   an   appeal   bearing   No.91
2

of 2019 before the DRAT challenging the order of DRT dated
18.03.2020.   The DRAT, however did not grant any interim
relief   to   him   and   consequently   Respondent   ­   Bank   herein
sought   to   put   the   property   to   auction   on   10.11.2021.     The
application   to   seek   interim   relief   from   the   DRAT   was
renotified   on   17.11.2021   i.e.   after   the   date   of   the   proposed
auction   and   therefore   apprehending   that   his   interim   relief
application   would   become   infructuous,   Respondent   No.1
herein   preferred   the   present   writ   petition   before   the   High
Court.     Though   the   appeal   before   the   DRAT   was   pending
and   what   was   challenged   before   the   High   Court   was   with
regard to not granting any interim relief against the auction,
by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has
disposed   of   the   writ   petition   by   granting   one   further
opportunity   to   the   original   writ   petitioner   to   deposit   the
balance  amount along  with the  damages quantified at Rs.5
lakhs.  The High Court has passed the following order:
“13.   In   the   aforesaid   circumstances,   we   grant
one   opportunity   to   the   petitioner   to   deposit   the
balance   amount   along   with   damages   quantified
at   Rs.5   Lakhs,   within   the   next   two   weeks.   The
deposit shall be made with the respondent bank
within the aforesaid period. In case, the deposit
is   made   in   these   terms,   the   respondent   bank
3

shall   proceed   to   deliver   the   possession   of   the
properties to the petitioner. The Recovery Officer
is   directed   to   release   the   25%   of   the   amount
deposited by the petitioner with him, along with
up   to   date   interest,   within   the   next   10   days   to
the   respondent   Bank,   and   to   confirm   the   sale.
The   Recovery   Officer   shall   take   all   steps   under
the law to perfect the title of the petitioner.”
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisifed   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   original
respondent   No.2   –   original   borrower   has   preferred   the
present Civil Appeal Nos.  1302­1303 of 2022.
2.3 After the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 passed
in Writ Petition (C) No.12530 of 2021, a review petition was
filed which has been dismissed by the High Court which is
the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos.1302­1303 of 2022.
3. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties and perused the impugned judgment and order.
3.1 Having   gone   through   the   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that
the same passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
3.2 The   High   Court   has   not   properly   appreciated   the   fact
that what was challenged before it was regarding non­grant
4

of   any   interim   relief   pending   the   appeal   before   the   DRAT.
Main   appeal   was   yet   to   be   considered   by   the   DRAT   on
merits.   From the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, it appears that the High Court has decided
and   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   as   if   the   High   Court   was
considering   the   final   decision   of   the   DRAT.     The   order
passed   by   the   DRT   confirming   the   order   passed   by   the
Recovery   Officer   forfeiting   10%   amount   deposited   by   the
auction   purchaser   was   yet   to   be   decided   by   the   DRAT.
Therefore,   the   High   Court   as   such   has   gone   beyond   the
scope and ambit of the proceedings before it.
3.3 By passing the impugned judgment and order the High
Court   has   as   such   made   the   proceedings   before   the   DRAT
infructuous,   as   after   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
nothing   further   is   required   to   be   decided   by   the   DRAT.
Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction by
passing the impugned judgment and order.  
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the present appeals succeed.   The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is/are hereby quashed and
5

set   aside.     Now,   the   DRAT   to   finally   decide   and   dispose   of
the Appeal No.91 of 2019 in accordance with law and on its
own merits.   DRAT is directed to finally decide and dispose
of the said appeal at the earliest, preferably within a period
of   four   months   from   the   date   of   the   receipt   of   the   present
order.  
Present   appeals   are   accordingly   Allowed   to   the
aforesaid extent. No costs. 
…………………………………J.
          (M. R. SHAH)
 
…………………………………J.
                                              (B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
February 16, 2022
6