ORDER :

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.03.2020 passed in R.A. (S.A.) No.107 of 2017 in S.A.No.5 of 2013 on the file of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.)

1. These matters bring out a comedy of errors on all sides and the unprofessional manner in which the litigation is conducted for most parts.

2. There are two petitions. C.R.P.No.1341 of 2020 is by a company that had obtained credit facilities from the then Andhra Bank, which has now merged into the Union Bank of India. C.R.P.No.1375 of 2020 has been brought by the auction-purchaser of an immovable property after suffering an order undoing the sale in its favour.

3. The secured creditor exercised its authority under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to put up the secured asset for sale. At the auction that was concluded prior to November, 2012, Vinplex India Pvt. Ltd (the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1375 of 2020) was identified as the highest bidder and such party duly put in the consideration to be entitled to the sale being confirmed in its favour. However, before the sale could be confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser, borrower Vantage Resorts and Clubs Pvt. Ltd (the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1341 of 2020) approached the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal to challenge the sale. On November 27, 2012 a conditional order was passed by the DRT and the borrower was directed to deposit Rs.1 crore with the secured creditor within 30 days. The order dated November 27, 2012 also provided as follows: “If the applicant (the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1341 of 2021 herein) fails to deposit Rs.1 crore on or before 26.12.2012 with the respondent bank as directed herein above, the respondent bank is at liberty to confirm the sale on 27.12.2012”.

4. The borrower failed to make the initial deposit of Rs.1 crore by December 26, 2012. In terms of the liberty granted by the order dated November 27, 2012, the bank confirmed the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser on December 27, 2012 and the registration of the sale certificate was concluded by January 2, 2013.

5. The borrower then approached the DRT with an ex parte application on January 4, 2013 and the DRT passed an order extending the time to make the payment till such date. The payment was apparently tendered thereupon and the bank was forwarded a copy of the ex parte application for extension with the extension order of January 4, 2013 passed by the DRT endorsed therein.

6. Subsequently, the DRT passed an order setting aside the sale and the borrower paid off the bank’s dues. The order setting aside the sale of the property appears to have been challenged, but the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal merely directed refund of the consideration tendered by the auction-purchaser.

7. The auction-purchaser applied before the Appellate Tribunal for refund of the stamp duty expenses incurred in course of the registration of the sale and indicated that a sum of Rs.22 lakh had been spent in such regard. Even while the relevant application for refund of the stamp duty component, together with interest thereon, was pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the auction-purchaser came to this court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking appropriate orders on the bank to comply with the DRAT order and refund the consideration along with interest. Such writ petition has been disposed of by this court and the amount of consideration tendered together with interest thereon have been recovered by the auction-purchaser.

8. The DRAT, thereafter, took up the auction-purchaser’s application for refund of the stamp duty and, by the order impugned dated March 12, 2020 directed the bank to pay Rs.11 lakh, amounting to approximately half of the stamp duty, and permitted the bank to recover such amount from the borrower within two months from the date of the order failing which the borrowe