SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. M/s. Goldkist Mobile Academy Pvt. Ltd. the petitioner-auction bidder by way of this writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the order dated 10th October, 2014, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT, for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd respondent No. 3 (borrower, for short) had availed a loan facility from Jammu & Kashmir Bank-respondent No. 1 (bank, for short). To secure the loan, a land measuring 42 bighas 4 biswas, in Jhatikra/Zatikra, Najafgarh, Delhi was mortgaged with the bank as a security. Due to default made by the borrower, proceedings under The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assests and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI, for short) were initiated and the secured asset i.e. properties in question were put to sale. The petitioner/auction bidder had given highest bid of Rs. 16,30,20,000/- in the auction held on 9th July, 2011 for purchase of the mortgaged property against the reserved price of Rs. 12 crores. The petitioner had also deposited earnest money of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-. By letter dated 11th July, 2011, the petitioner was duly informed by the bank that they had been declared the highest bidder and should comply with the terms and conditions of the notice inviting the bids. The petitioner deposited the balance 25% of the bid amount within 2 days and remaining 75% within 15 days i.e. on 25th July, 2011.

3. During the course of hearing, it was specifically put to and the petitioner was asked to clarify, whether any confirmation of the bid was received by them. It was accepted that except for letter dated 11th July, 2011, no other communication or letter was received by them from the bank. It was urged that this letter dated 11th July, 2011 and the stand taken by the bank as recorded in the order dated 29th January, 2013, dismissing SA No. 31/2010, preferred by the guarantor Ms Poonam Mansai-respondent No.2 (guarantor, for short) and respondent No.3 the borrower, should be treated as confirmation of the highest bid.

4. It is not possible to accept the said contention for the reasons set out below.

5. Letter dated 11th July, 2011, sent by the bank to the petitioner reads as under:-

To,

Goldkist Mobile Academy Pvt. Ltd.

101 Kundan House, 16 Nehru Place

New Delhi, 110019

Dated – 11.07.2011

Subject – Sale Notice

Dear Sir,

We are pleased to inform you that you have been declared as the highest bidder in the proceedings held today at a total bid amount of Rs. 16,30,20,000/- (Rs. Sixteen Crore, Thirty Lakh and Twenty Thousand only). Kindly comply with the other terms and conditions of the notice inviting bids.

Yours Faithfully

Authorised Officer

J & K Bank Ltd.”

The above stated letter merely informed and communicated a fact that the petitioner had given the highest bid and that they should make payment in terms and as per conditions of the notice inviting the bids. This was not a letter of confirmation and acceptance of the bid, concluding and creating a binding contract.

6. The guarantor and borrower had earlier preferred an I.A. praying for interim relief in SA No. 31 of 2010, questioning the auction proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT, for short). On 8th July, 2011, an interim order was passed permitting the bank to proceed with the auction but confirmation of the bid required approval from the DRT. The petitioner cannot deny and contest being aware and informed about the said stipulation or interim order passed by the DRT. The petitioner, in fact, moved an application and was impleaded as a party to SA No. 31 of 2010. The petitioner filed another application seeking confirmation of sale in their favour and a third application for transfer/deposit of the bid amount in the no lien account.

7. Thus, the petitioner, had due notice when they deposited the payments towards the bid price that the bank would confirm the sale only after approval by the