The petitioner should avail appellate remedy under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 to challenge the confirmation of sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes up on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated 06.11.2019, which has been filed by the private respondent No.3.

2. Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 at the outset invited Court's attention towards the order dated24.10.2019, passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 18030/2019 (Ashok Kumar Mehta Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.) and pointed out that petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition laying challenge to the auction proceedings and order dated 22.10.2019 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal raising numerous grievances, including that the petitioner has deposited substantial amount by 23.10.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner's attempt to challenge the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been negated by this Court at Jaipur Bench and his writ petition was dismissed in wake of availability of alternative remedy of challenging the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002') yet the petitioner has dared to file another writ petition, this time before the Principal Seat for almost identical relief.

4. Argument of Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel, has been that the present writ petition is not maintainable, particularly in view of following observation of Jaipur Bench of this Court duly recorded in its order dated 24.10.2019:-

"At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least, some protection may be granted to the petitioner for the time being, as he has to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and disposing of the appeal or hearing of the stay application may take some time.

This Court is afraid to pass such order, as this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot entertain the writ petition.

This court further finds that if the petitioner makes out a case for interim relief before the Appellate Tribunal and further, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering all the facts and subsequent events which have taken place, like deposition of entire amount, etc., can pass necessary orders to meet the contingency.

This Court further finds that the petitioner has to satisfy the Appellate Tribunal with regard to the relief, which is claimed in the present writ petition, including, interim relief.

This Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and as such, the same is dismissed."

5. Mr. Lodha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that respondents' contention as projected, is not correct inasmuch as the petitioner has disclosed the factum of filing of the writ petition at Jaipur Bench in Para No.24 of the present writ petition. He submitted that as a matter of fact by way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged subsequent order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, whereby the sale has been confirmed in favour of respondent No.3 ignoring the fact that entire amount has been deposited by the petitioner.

6. He emphasized that writ petition filed by the petitioner at Jaipur bench was for a separate cause of action, whereas the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition questioning the confirmation of sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and brushing aside the fact that petitioner has deposited outstanding dues of the Bank on 23.10.2019. He thus, argued that respondents' preliminary objection is not well founded.

7. Learned Senior Counsel made various submissions on the merits of the case, however, without pronouncing upon such arguments and conduct of the petitioner as alleged by the respondents, this Court is of the view that in the face of the observation made by Jaipur Bench of this Court (in case of petitioner himself), it would not be proper for this Court