JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocate Mr.Rajesh Parekh with learned advocate Mr.Viral V. Dave for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Ms.Anushree M. Soni for the respondent.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Anushree M. Soni waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this Application;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to set aside the order below Ex.1 dtd 24-9-19 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Mumbai on Appeal No. 7 of 2014 should be quashed and set aside and the orders of DRT1 Ahmedabad dtd 18-4-13 in SA 81/12 and order dtd 3- 11-15 in MA 66 of 2015 should be restored without any interruption till the refund of amount paid by the petitioner i.e Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) to the Respondent Bank with interest of 9% p.a. till full payment to the present applicant along with damages, mesne profit occurred thereupon.

(C) Cost of the present application to be recovered from the respondent Bank.

(D) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1. The petitioner has issued a Cheque No.390306 dated 18.04.2012 for Rs.25 Lakh in favour of the Bank of India on behalf of one M/s. Seema Jwellers-the borrower who borrowed finance from the respondent-Bank of India towards the advance for purchase of the property of the borrower with an understanding that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of purchase consideration of Rs.200 Lakhs for the property, the said amount shall be refunded by the respondent-Bank and till that point of time, the amount shall be kept into No Lien Account.

3.2. The said cheque was cleared by the HDFC Bank as per the statement placed on record by the petitioner along with the affidavit-in-rejoinder which clearly shows that the Cheque of Rs.25 Lakh was cleared.

3.3. M/s. Seema Jwellers preferred Securitisation Application No.81 of 2012 (for short ‘S.A.No.81 of 2012’) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the DRT’) under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) challenging the action taken by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

3.4. It appears that during the pendency of the S.A.No.81 of 2012, the petitioner preferred an application Exh: T-27 for return of the amount of Rs.25 Lakh deposited by him.

3.5. The DRT by order dated 18.04.2013 dismissed the S.A.No.81 of 2012 filed by the borrower M/s. Seema Jwellers, however, with regard to the application at Exhibit T-27, the DRT directed the respondent-Bank to refund an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs deposited by the petitioner.

3.6. The DRT held in the said order as under :

“(22) Now I will deal with the applications filed by the Bhaskar Parekh, I have gone through the said applications Exh.T/26 and T/27. The said applications were filed at a very belated stage when the arguments of the Securitization Application were almost over. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, I cannot ignore the said applications which were filed on 05.03.2013. Be it noted that respondent Bank has not filed any formal reply to the said applications. In para No. 3 of T/27, the third party, has mentioned that one of the conditions of the offer made by him to the Bank while he deposited Rs. 25.00 lacs showing interest to purchase the second property, i. e. residential one wherein he categorically stipulated that, if he fails to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 220 lacs, then the Bank shall return the deposited amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs. Since the Respondent Bank has not filed any reply and refuted this contention I have to beli