The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair valuation, compliance with statutory provisions, and the need to set aside auction-sales with fundamental procedural errors.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce total record of the case.

(ii) That the impugned order dated 30.11.2010, Annexure P6, being illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction may kindly be ordered to be set-aside and quashed.

(iii) That since the outstanding amount as per the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 was deposited by the petitioners in compliance with the orders of the learned trial Tribunal, Chandigarh on 14.07.2008, therefore, it may kindly be held that nothing is recoverable from the petitioners.

(iv) That the auction proceedings with respect to the property of the petitioners as carried out by the respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be declared to be null and void and consequently it may be held that the sale deed in question may be held to be illegal and wrong.”

2. The petitioners took housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent No.1 for the construction of house jointly against land bearing Khata Khatauni No. 9/11, Khasra No. 668/348/4 (old) and new Khasra No.1146, measuring 00170 hectares measuring 4 biswa at Mauza Chhakryal, Kamla Nagar, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. This loan was sanctioned on 21.11.2002 and was required to be paid within a period of 10 years. The petitioners paid some instalments of the loan. However, in the meanwhile, the respondent-Bank took recourse to the proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘Act’). This constrained the petitioners to issue a legal notice dated 11.6.2006 wherein it was pointed out that the petitioners had already made the following payments:

(i)	24.05.2006	Rs. 19,500/-
(ii)	15.04.2006	Rs. 25,000/-
(iii)	18.04.2006	Rs. 50,000/-
(iv)	30.05.2006	Rs. 20,000/-
(v)	30.05.2006	Rs. 20,000/-
(vi)	02.08.2006	Rs. 1,50,000/-

3. It was on the strength of these payments that the petitioners asked the bank to dissociate itself from continuing with such proceedings as they have already received the considerable amount. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 did not concede the demand of the petitioners and ultimately the petitioners resorted to the proceedings under Section 17(3) of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal passed an interim order on 22.08.2006 by directing the respondent-Bank not to dispossess the petitioners if not already dispossessed. However, in the meanwhile, the property was put to sale, but the said sale was set-aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It further directed the petitioners to deposit the entire outstanding dues of Rs.5,07,073/- and the property was ordered to be restored to them. Consequently, the sale deed dated 02.09.2006 was also declared to be invalid and directions were issued to the bank to return the title deed to the petitioners.

4. The order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as regards the Bank, has attained finality as it was never assailed by it. However, the auction purchaser, who has been arrayed as respondent No.3 herein, assailed the same before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (for short ‘Appellate Tribunal’) which was allowed vide judgment dated 30.11.2010 and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal were ordered to be reversed. It is this order of the Appellate Tribunal that has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court on number of grounds as taken in the petition.

5. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply wherein number of preliminary objections regarding the petition not being maintainable as the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, suppression of