The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper application of the SARFAESI Act, including the validity of borrower's applications, the appropriateness of interim stay, and the handling of the sale process by the Bank.

R. Banumathi, J. and K.K. Sasidharan, J.

The Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (PD) Nos.3371 and 3726 of 2012 at the instance of the Bank challenges the order dated 3 August 2012 and 11 September 2012, whereby and whereunder, the applications filed by the borrower to receive additional grounds and to grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the SARFAESI Proceedings initiated by the Bank, were allowed.

2. The revision petition in CRP (PD) No.3601 of 2012 is at the instance of the borrower and the challenge is to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 3 August 2012 dismissing the application filed for a direction to the Authorised Officer to forfeit 25% of the amount paid by the successful bidder.

3. Since all these Civil Revision Petitions relate to SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Indian Bank against M/s. Tetrahedron Ltd., and others, the parties are referred to as Bank and borrower. Background facts:

4. M/s. Tetrahedron Limited (the borrower) availed financial assistance from Mylapore Branch of Indian Bank for the purpose of establishing a manufacturing unit at Ambattur. Since the borrower failed to repay the loan amount in accordance with the payment schedule, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFASI Act"). The notice under Section 13 (2) was issued on 26 July 2010. The Bank, thereafter, issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 8 October 2010. The measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act was challenged by the borrower before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") in S.A.No.73 of 2011. During the currency of the SARFAESI Appeal in S.A.No.73 of 2011, the Bank sold the residential property mortgaged by the borrower. The Bank also issued a notification for auctioning the factory building and lease hold premises. Even though the successful bidder for the industrial property deposited 25% of the amount, he has not taken steps to deposit the balance amount. However, the Bank failed to take action to forfeit 25% of the amount. This made the borrower to file the application for forfeiture of security deposit. The borrower also filed an application to receive additional grounds. The borrower, by way of third application, wanted the DRT to stay all further proceedings initiated by the Bank under SARFAESI proceedings till the disposal of the appeal.

5. The DRT dismissed the application filed by the borrower for a direction to the Bank to forfeit the amount paid by the auction purchaser. The said order was challenged by the borrower in C.R.P.(PD) No.3601 of 2012. The application filed by the borrower to receive additional grounds was allowed on 3 August 2012. The said order is challenged by the Bank in C.R.P.(PD). No.3371 of 2012. The Debts Recovery Tribunal was pleased to grant interim stay of sale till the disposal of the SARFAESI Appeal on 11 September 2012. The said order is challenged by the Bank in CRP (PD) No.3726 of 2012. Submissions:

6. The learned counsel for the Bank contended that the borrower had given consent to auction the Gummudipoondi property and as such, there was no ground made out to stay the sale. According to the learned counsel, the Bank was not given notice by the DRT before granting interim stay. The learned counsel contended that DRT passed a one line order granting stay of sale without making any attempt to consider the merits of the matter. The DRT violated all the cannons of justice while passing the interim order behind the back of the Bank, pending SARFAESI Proceedings. With respect to the order allowing the application for raising additional grounds, the learned counsel contended that, in case the SARFAESI Appeal was filed on the date on which the application was filed, it would be barred by limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not ju