The successful auction purchaser has a remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if aggrieved by the cancellation of the auction, and the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised unless there are exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)

1. The present LPA is arising out of an order dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 9540/2022 titled Seema Sahni Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.

2. The undisputed fact of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court, who was a bidder in an E-Auction conducted on 21.03.2022 in respect of mortgaged property i.e. Duplex dwelling unit on 1st and 2nd floor situated at Ashoka Cresent - 63 (FF-1) and (FF-2), DLF City, Phase-1, Gurgaon, came up before this Court being aggrieved by the action of the Respondent Bank in cancelling the auction process on 31.03.2022.

3. The facts further reveal that on 04.03.2022 a notice was published in respect of auction to be conducted by the Respondent Bank, as the Borrowers and Guarantors failed to clear their dues.

4. The Appellant, after registration for the process of auction, participated in the Auction scheduled on 22.03.2022, and was declared a successful bidder for sum of Rs. 3,53,00,000/-, and was directed to deposit 25% of the Auction Price.

5. The Appellant, in fact, had already deposited Rs. 35,20,000/- as EMD amount and the balance amount of Rs. 53,05,000/- was required to be deposited by 23.03.2022. She was declared as a successful bidder on 23.03.2022. The Appellant deposited 53,05,000/-, meaning thereby, paid the 25% of the total amount in respect of the Auction Property, however, she was informed that the process of auction has been cancelled. The Appellant, in those circumstances, came up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition and prayed for the following reliefs:

"a. Set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2023, in WP (C) No. 9450/.2022, passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court;

b. Issue order quashing and setting aside the decision/order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) take by the Respondents cancelling the auction process, after the Appellant was successful in the auction and had deposited the 25 percent of the price of the auctioned property;.

c. Issue of commanding the Respondents to deem the sale of the auctioned property in favour of the Appellant as confirmed and to issue sale certificate in her favour7 after accepting the balance 75 percent price of the auctioned property;

d. To pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble High Court deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."

6. A reply was filed before the Learned Single Judge, and it was brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge that the borrower submitted one time settlement (OTS) proposal which was accepted by the Respondent Bank keeping in view the policy framed by the Reserve Bank of India. The Respondent Bank also informed the Learned Single Judge that the bid offered by the Appellant was for a sum of Rs. 3,53,00,000/- and the proposal of the Borrower for an OTS was accepted at Rs. 3,82,,00,000/-, and, therefore, the same was cancelled resulting in cancellation of the auction process.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the auction of the Respondent is contrary to the Provision of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "SARFAESI Act"), and the same is arbitrary and illegal, and, therefore, the Learned Single Judge has erred in law and fact in dismissing the Writ Petition with a liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The Learned Single Judge in Paragraph 7 to 21 has held has under:

"7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in paragraphs 30 and 31 has held as under:

"30. In our view, therefore, the7 expression any ofthe measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by secured creditor or his authorized officer in Section 17(1) would include all actions taken by the secured creditor under the Rules which relate to the measures specified in Secti